Recently “humanitarian” groups such as Amnesty International and Avaaz have been targeting Russia (and China to a lesser extent) in relation to the current Syrian conflict.
The stance does not make much sense in relation to the general missions of these “humanitarian” groups.
A.I., a long standing effective and trusted player, is seen worldwide as an agency of impeccable credentials on human rights.
From seemingly nowhere (?) Avaaz has exploded onto the world-political-activist scene with enormous success (including membership enrollments involving millions of weekly outreach communications).
I described this activity as the state of being “infiltrated with the agenda of Empire” in a previous e-mail.
It is an extremely effective form of propaganda – these are deeply trusted messengers.
The entire effect is similar to how “P”BS is being used to prop up “commercial” network personalities (and mainstream/corp. media agendas), especially in affiliate with CBS and NBC/MSNBC).
A.I and Avaaz in particular should be pointed out and questioned in a prominent way in alternative media – it is an important observation to get out into the public domain.
The “structural” problem of their anti-Russia/China agenda, and its nonsensical juxtaposition to the mostly ignored problem of the U.S. Empire’s presence and effect is what sends up the red flags here.
If that isn’t pointed out to their politically earnest supporters, making this point can result in despair and alienation, or more probably in the (emotionally based) rejection of this news.
The grassroots supporters of groups like these need to understand that they must have a clear structural understanding of their own agendas, and divorce themselves as much as possible from the public “personalities” of these agencies in order to interact faithfully on pursuing genuinely and properly-informed political action for good will.
The “shape-shifting” usurpation of legitimate counter-establishment agencies is reaching new heights of efficiency and efficaciousness, and we must keep up pace.
Analogously, if these groups had been effectively interested in addressing the violence and bloodshed that was part of the recent Libyan coup they would have directed attention to the fact that NATO bombing and NATO-allied Libyan “insurrectionists” were the main causes of the death-tolls that spurred so much “humanitarian” interest, and that the U.S. had been deceptively arming factions (and creating even more factionalism than was already present within Libya) since at least two years prior to 2011.
