By: Brandon Turbeville / Activist Post   Ever since having utterly destroyed a smug mainstream journalist at a UN Summit over corporate media's claims that they had sources inside East Aleppo, hospital bombings, and other "atrocities" committed by the Assad government, Eva Bartlett has been the subject of a corporate media smear campaign.

Corporate media outlets and their NGO talking heads have maligned her as a "Russian agent," a "Syrian agent," and, probably the most ridiculous of all, even a racist (meaning white supremacist). This last one, of course, is a hallmark of the more NGO-funded or mentally handicapped SJW contingency, the usual suspects who compulsively make this accusation. The argument is that saying the alleged "revolution" of bearded jihadist freaks was funded and orchestrated by the West is to deny that Arabs have the ability to orchestrate their own subhuman revolution of savagery. (Yawn.)

Still, this is quite a resume for a Canadian woman writing for alternative media outlets who can afford to pay very little for contributors (if at all) and traveling to places like Gaza and Syria on a shoestring budget in often rather unpleasant conditions. With Russia taking over the world and all, it's surprising they couldn't at least find better travel arrangements for one of their agents (or at least a .com domain! After all, the Russian hacking ability knows no limits, right?). It's also odd that a white supremacist would find her life's calling defending the rights of brown people against Western, largely white, nations. But I digress . . .

The assertions made against her are so baseless and incredibly imbecilic that they do not warrant refutations, especially since her detractors will simply invent another attack when the current one no longer works. Today, a racist Russian/Syrian agent. Tomorrow an anti-white capitalist pig, perhaps. Only time will tell.

But, despite the smear campaign, none of the corporate NGO attackers ever address a single claim she makes. Instead, they go right to accusations, over-talking, and name-calling. If her statements were so bogus, they would be easy to refute, right? Still, there is no debate, only catcalls. The reason for this approach is simply because each time one of the mainstream media drones or an NGO fanatic engages her in an actual debate, they end up getting their asses handed to them on internationally broadcast programs.

Regardless, Eva continues her campaign to end in the imperialist war in Syria and, in the meantime, continues to expose the hypocrisy and treachery of Western media outlets.

In a recent interview with Global Research Eva was asked to recount some of her experiences traveling in Syria. During the first few minutes of the interview, she managed to reveal to the world how mainstream media outlets like the BBCand New York Times were exposed to the reality of the situation in Syria yet absolutely refused to report what they saw. Instead, they reported a lie; i.e. the establishment line that Assad is "killing his own people" and that terrorist atrocities were simply unable to be given definitive attribution. At best, they qualified their reports with fantastical claims by pro-terrorist websites and organizations like the SOHR so heavily that the report itself seemed to "debunk" the actual truth of the matter.

Bartlett stated,

On a personal level, for example, in April, 2014, there was a mortar, at least one mortar which struck a school in Old Damascus. The school is called al-Menar and if I recall one child was killed and over sixty were injured. And I went to a hospital called the French Hospital with some others on this peace delegation I was in Syria with and we wanted to see who were the injured children, you know, to document them, share their stories, or at least share the fact that a school had been shelled by a militant in Jobar or East Damascus. And while we were there we ran into Lyse Doucet of the BBC. And she saw the same children. She could have asked the questions and deduced that the mortar indeed came from the militant area but her later report said something to the effect of "we don't know where it came from." That's one instance.