Syria's Muslim Brotherhood Propped Up by US Since 2007 Under Bush … In 2007, the Wall Street Journal published an article titled, "To Check Syria, U.S. Explores Bond With Muslim Brothers." And even then, it was noted that the Brotherhood held close links with groups the US recognizes and lists as terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Al Qaeda. The report gives a disturbing foreshadowing of US support that would eventually see the Muslim Brotherhood rise as both a political and terroristic power across the Arab World, after decades of hard-fought attempts to crush the sectarian extremist organization everywhere from Tunisia to Syria, from Egypt to Libya, to Jordan, and beyond. In fact, the 2007 Wall Street Journal article specifically noted that the US partnership could "destabilize governments in Jordan and Egypt, two US allies where the Brotherhood is a growing opposition force." – Tony Cartalucci/Landdestroyer.blogspot.ca
Dominant Social Theme: The Muslim Brotherhood is a dangerous and radical group.
Free-Market Analysis: How long can the US and NATO keep lying about the Middle East and northern Africa before the lies become untenable and the ones propounding the lies do irreparable damage to the credibility of the organizations they support?
The larger question to ask is whether once these organizations have suffered such damage the larger society becomes irreparably damaged as well? And what does that mean for the controllers of the larger society?
We ask this in light of the peculiar debunking taking place in the Middle East and Africa. Already in the published record of mainstream Middle Eastern annals one can find articles and videos making it clear that various US Intel shops created Al Qaeda, created AYM – the youth groups now destabilizing the Middle East and Africa – and, according to the Wall Street Journal (see excerpt above), created and control the emergent Muslim Brotherhood.
The idea, as we have long pointed out, has nothing really to do with resources, exploitation of Third World countries, etc. These were dominant social themes scattered about like so many breadcrumbs to entice people to follow the wrong trail.
For decades now the mainstream leftist media has been filled with thunderous tirades against capitalism's exploitation of developing countries and their resources. Even today, in the alternative media many continue to repeat the idea that the West invades other countries for their "resources."
But if one is a student of directed history, it soon becomes clear this rhetoric is inaccurate. The power elite has been setting up world government under the guise of exploiting different countries' resources.
When the Pentagon began to have difficulty in Afghanistan it promptly released an old Russian survey of oil and minerals in Afghanistan. Soon people learned that one reason it would not be wise to abandon Afghanistan was because of the many minerals and oil resources there, including rare earth minerals.
We later did a bit of research on rare earth minerals because we were suspicious of the name. When the elites want the masses to believe in something they often come up with a name that encapsulates the particular belief.
When the powers-that-be wanted people to believe oil was a dwindling resource, they came up with the nomenclature "fossil fuel." Of course, oil is probably abiotic as well as created from plants and dinosaur bones but the point was made; people assumed oil was in short supply. It's a myth that careful market manipulation made real.
Rare earth minerals are plentiful in the western US where various geological surveys have revealed their presence. But people have been taught to believe that only China has a plentiful amount of rare earth minerals. This goes along with the dominant social theme of a Resurgent Red China. China is to be seen as economically powerful, rapacious and endowed with certain resources the West does not have.
The elites always need to posit an enemy. Enemies are political, resource-based or economic or social in nature. Everything must be characterized as a "war" (the War on Drugs, the War on Hunger, the War on Inflation, the War on Poverty, etc.).
Once a "war" is created, then government can be brought into play. This is entirely necessary because the elites operate from behind government via mercantilism. Without a war and without a government to motivate for reactive purposes, elites would lack clout and efficacy.
The past 100 to 150 years have been filled with wars of all kinds. When no war is immediately available, one or more have quickly been constructed. Presently, the most obvious war is the War on Terror, and while this war has never seemed very compelling, Western powers are busy destabilizing the Middle East and Africa to create a more worrisome scenario.
Here's some more from the alternative media Land Destroyer blog report (excerpted above):
Egypt is now run by a sectarian-extremist Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship, after the US incited unrest there in 2011, while Jordan is seeing increasing unrest led by the Jordanian arm of the Brotherhood.
What is also disturbing about the 2007 report, is that it shows how allegedly "Bush-era" policies transcended the 2000-2008 administration and continued in earnest under President Obama.
The report, written by Jay Solomon, echoes similar foreshadowing of the coming violent sectarian bloodbath now engulfing Syria, found in Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh's New Yorker piece titled, "The Redirection: Is the Administration's new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?"
As reluctant believers in elite motivated "directed history," we've long since concluded that much of what has passed for the global narrative in the past century or so has actually been created and acted on by a power-mad monied group that wants to create official world government. "They" want to run the world and they fund their campaign via the central banks they control and the money they print.
The wars, politics and economics of the past century or more have seamlessly intersected to create ever more globalism. But until recently, the mechanism behind these trends was not easily identifiable. Thanks to what we call the Internet Reformation, one can easily see the patterns and observe the not-so-fine hand creating the fabric of modern history.
How long can events continue this way? Every part of the so-called War on Terror is under attack, it seems to us, with much of the debunkery increasingly coming from the mainstream.
Questions about the Sandy Hook massacre, continued questions about 9/11, questions about Barack Obama's background and re-election, questions even about NASA's long-ago moon landings – and hundreds of other issues – are increasingly breaking through into the mainstream consciousness.
In the 20th century there were plenty of ways for the elites to deal with breakdowns in their narratives. But in the 21st century none of this "damage control" works very well.
In the 20th century the breakdowns were easily controllable. The individuals involved could be attacked and silenced. But the Internet Reformation makes those tactics more difficult to pursue and apply.
You see, the Internet is a PROCESS not an episode. It is like a leaky dike. The structure itself is giving way. No matter how many fingers plug the developing holes, the results will not be adequate because more leaks will develop.
This is why we have predicted – contrary to the naysayers – that the 21st century may be one of enlightenment, whereas the 20th century was one of almost unillumed darkness.
The elites are counting on the "fog of war" to obscure the charade playing out in the Middle East now. But the Internet has already pierced the fog of war and shown a bright light on the elite deus ex machina.
This is just one example of what's going on. And it's not a problem that is going away.
Here's another thought: The Internet Reformation is a process not an episode.