Syria’s Chief Mole Defects
Syrian Prime Minister Riad Hijab Defects to Jordan
New in the Website
The news was so obviously wrong, that I checked out various sources, including Hebrew media and the BBC. All of them repeated the odd announcement made by Mohamed Atari, the former Prime Minister’s spokesman. “It was arranged with the Free Syrian Army months ago that it would safely deliver him to a secure place where he would announce his defection,” he said. The point is that months ago, Riad Hijab was just the Minister of Agriculture. Moreover, he is from Deir ez-Zor, a remote area in Eastern Syria. Before he rose to prominence when appointed prime Minister on June 23, he had no problem going to his home and from there crossing overland to nearby Iraq. From there, he could have joined the “blessed revolution,” as his spokesman defined the ongoing violence. Yet he didn’t do that. In sharp contrast to Western media reports, the Syrian media and Russia Today claim that Hijab defected after being sacked by Bashar al-Assad. Can we be watching a Western attempt to gain support for its violence in Syria by disclosing a former “mole?”
Western Ministry of Truth
The Western Democracies base their self-celebratory definition of their freedom of speech. It is very difficult to contradict this claim; one can find practically everything published in Western media. Oddly enough, there are various censorship and diversion techniques attached to this only apparent freedom.
There is no better description of the situation the West is experiencing nowadays, than George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Orwell described a society oppressed by The Party. It is a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance, and public mind control. The book definitely takes place in England. The political system is called English Socialism (Ingsoc) and is under control of the privileged Inner Party elite, which persecutes all individualism and independent thinking as thoughtcrimes. The Ministry of Truth (Minitrue) is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism; in other words, it constantly rewrites history so that it will fit current reality.
Western Democracies—especially the USA—have based their economies on military industries. Without an eternal war, Western economies would collapse. This explains the incredible chain of wars—that the USA is involved in since WWII. Most of them were lost by America. Korea remained divided. Vietnam was unified under communism after an incredible victory over the Western Empire. Afghanistan defeated the Soviet attack, and probably will survive the American one as well. Iraq seems on the verge of being split between Shi’as and Kurds. I concede critics of my claim that USA won in Grenada. Yet, when you read Western sources, everything is upside down. “Heroic Western soldiers won again,” are the eternal headlines. Control the headlines, and you control the population. After all, no government could be ratified over a politic of war and violence.
Hence, reality contradicts the political wishes of the privileged elite. A Western government can’t possibly censor a book like Nineteen Eighty-Four and survive the event unscathed. What can evil do? One technique is aiming the problematic content at someone else. Nineteen Eighty-Four was clearly written about England and takes place mainly in London. This is not an assumption. Orwell was explicit about this. It even resembles the reality of Western surveillance-states. Yet, in 2006, a small book was published in the USA. It was named Finding George Orwell in Burma, and was written by Emma Larkin. The author made an outrageous claim. She said that three of Orwell’s books, namely Nineteen Eighty-Four, Animal Farm, and Burmese Days, were a trilogy describing Myanmar, a gentle country constantly vilified by the West. I have already commented on the first book. The second is an imaginary tale taking place in a farm and describing the evils of Communism. It obviously cannot describe Myanmar—which was never Communist—and one of the animals in the book is a quite obvious and humorous description of Joseph Stalin. Only the third book is related to Myanmar. Ms. Larkin tied together all the undesired material—undesired to the ruling elites—and threw it at Myanmar, a country these elites despise. This is long-term propaganda; only time will tell if this cheap trick worked for the West.
A similar technique is the accusation of undesirable people committing non-existing crimes. I reported on an extraordinary example committed by Israel earlier this year in Minority Report: IDF arrests Palestinian prisoner released in Shalit swap. According to the IDF spokesperson, a person was arrested for “being a security threat.” Often, one can observe how the legal system of those countries defining themselves as “Western Democracies” operates and be left speechless. On the issue of crimes, Israel operates according to Criminal Law, also known as Penal Law, the law pertaining to crimes and punishment. The laws comprising this topic regulate the definition of offences found to have a sufficiently deleterious social impact and impose punishments on them. However, the law does not impose restrictions on society that physically prevents people from committing a crime in the first place. Anything else would equal the state claiming to have precognition powers.
Again, the West doesn’t hide this behavior, but diverts it. “The Minority Report” is a 1956 science fiction short story by Philip K. Dick, first published in Fantastic Universe. The story is about a society where murders are prevented through the efforts of three mutants—called “precogs”—who can see the future, in other words possess the power of precognition. The story explores the rule of law through a carefully designed paradox, when the chief of police intercepts a precognition message by one of the mutants that he is about to murder a man he has never met. Then, the chief of police begins a complex attempt to blame a police officer for this future crime. The society described in the story is based on “Precrime,” a system that punishes people with imprisonment for murders they would have committed, had they not been prevented. In the introduction to the story Philip K. Dick writes: “punishment was never much of a deterrent and could scarcely have afforded comfort to a victim already dead.” In other words, The Minority Report describes a police-state in which state agents may arrest someone based on their assumptions regarding a possible future. Eventually, the process is proved wrong—“precogs” can err in their judgment—and the system is scrapped. A Brave New World had been born; one of its provinces was named “State of Israel.”
This book was less known than Nineteen Eighty-Four, yet, it was seen as no less a threat. It could be popularized by forces opposing the current Western regimes. In this case, a movie was made, featuring a major Hollywood star. One of the movie’s most striking features is the amount of special, futuristic effects used in it. As a result, most of the articles commenting on it avoided the real issue—the systematic abuse of citizens by Western Democracies—and emphasized the technological issues. Could the gadgets shown there exist fifty years from now? Who cares! That wasn’t the point made by the author. Yet, Westerners have trouble applying logic these days, even common-sense Englishmen show difficulty in this.
Finally, another technique used by the West to deactivate uncomfortable truths has been depicted in the movie Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark. In its last scene, it is shown how the Ark of the Covenant is hidden by the USA Government in an apparently endless warehouse. This fits the plurality of information available in the West. Everything is available, but it is disguised under a plethora of disinformation. Can you find the exact spots used by the IDF in its incursions into Syria? Of course, but twenty other sites will provide contradictory disinformation. Whom should you trust? The Western Ministry of Truth is well and active, working day and night to hide the truth. Yet, from time to time it makes mistakes.
“You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.” George W. Bush, President of the USA in an interview with CBS News’ Katie Couric, September 6, 2006. Clear (and common) example of Western rhetoric.
Back to today’s bombshell. The defecting Prime Minister could have easily left Syria before he was promoted in June. He didn’t. Yet, he left only after he was promoted. Then, he proclaimed loyalty to the “blessed revolution.” This looks as the most profitable action to be taken by a mole who reached the peak of his power. If he stayed, he would have been forced to work against his operators and in favor of the struggling regime. By defecting, he left Basher al-Assad in an embarrassing situation. Both options regarding the defector’s identity—long-term mole or sacked politician attempting a last-minute gain—compromise Bashar al-Assad, who obviously had promoted the wrong man for the job. The main winners of the defection are those supporting the ongoing revolution; they were also those who made rushed comments on the event that do not fit reality. He was unlikely to wait for months as a medium-ranking politician despising his president, when he could have run away easily. Riad Hijab waited until his defection would have maximum effect, proving that he had the confidence of a waiting job. The announcement was dramatized by the declarations of the Syrian Free Army that the defection came “after months of preparations” and was widely and gladly promoted by Western media. Reality was slightly different. While a Western mole was taken out of danger, the Western headlines read “Heroic Democratic soldiers won again.”
My articles on the web are my main income these days; please donate or buy The Cross of Bethlehem or Back in Bethlehem.