Timing is everything when waging war “by way of deception,” the motto that has long guided Israeli war-planners. Whenever Israel’s geopolitical goals are threatened, chaos is assured. In national security terminology, the January 24th bombing at Moscow’s busiest airport was “out of theater repositioning.”
First among Tel Aviv’s priorities is their need to maintain traction for the latest geopolitical narrative: a “global war on terrorism” against “Islamo-fascism.” The fact that America’s two latest wars serve Israeli goals remains largely unmentioned in Western media.
Six days prior to the Moscow bombing, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev traveled to the West Bank to endorse a Palestinian state with its capital East Jerusalem. He pointedly noted “this was the first visit of a Russian president to Palestine not united with a visit to another country” (Israel).
Then he joined a fast-lengthening list of nations confirming that, to date, 109 of 192 United Nations member countries support a resolution recognizing Palestinian statehood.
Though the U.S. reliably vetoes Security Council resolutions at Israel’s request, sentiments are shifting as a global public awakens to the costs of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
Numerous Latin American nations recently extended recognition to Palestine. Ireland just announced an upgrade in its relationship to embassy status.
When waging war from the shadows, Zionist war-planners concentrate their efforts on key variables. Thus the fear in Tel Aviv that emerging events are loosening control of the Israel lobby over U.S. foreign policy.
To sustain a global “war on terrorism,” instability must be sustained. Anyone familiar with the Israeli use of strategic duplicity found it unsurprising when multiple crises emerged “unexpectedly” in North Africa.
Unrest in Tunisia triggered a change in government followed by unrest in Mauritania, Algeria, Yemen and Egypt. During a recent Arab League meeting, Secretary-General Amr Mousa cautioned that the contagion could spread.
If so, look for the price of energy to soar, further weakening leaders in the debt-ridden West where restive populations already face fewer services, higher taxes—and more debt.
Misdirection also plays a role in such well-timed crises. Tel Aviv just released a report justifying Israel’s deadly boarding of a Turkish vessel last May in international waters carrying aid to Gaza. Yet a post-mortem found 30 Israeli bullets in the bodies of nine dead activists, including one shot four times in the head.
Akin to the 911 Commission Report that obscured the anti-Zionist motivation for that mass murder, news of this Israeli attack was obscured by reports of a bombing in Moscow and a leak that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas secretly agreed to cede Palestinian land to Israel.
That well-timed leak weakened the Palestinian president while the bombing weakened the Russian president when this well-timed crisis forced his cancellation of a keynote address to world leaders at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
When deploying deceit to wage war, Zionists catalyze mental impressions meant to link events in the public’s mind. Thus the critical role of timing when advancing a thematic narrative such as The Clash of Civilizations.
These latest events heightened tensions worldwide as both fear and the requisite loathing were reinforced by yet another series of well-timed crises. When faced with the threat that their Islamo-fascist storyline is losing traction, what else can Zionists do?
Confronted with the possibility that the West may withdraw support for its six-decade occupation of Palestine, what is Tel Aviv to do? Facing the prospect of global censure for its murder of Turkish activists, how can Israel divert attention?
Tel Aviv is backed into a corner. Overwhelming evidence confirms that Zionists generated the false intelligence that induced the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Though the Israel lobby retains its control over U.S. lawmakers, the American public is fast realizing how many crises originate with those who consider themselves above the law.
To Betray, First Befriend
What are Americans to do when faced with a devious enemy—posing as an ally—whose operatives consider themselves Chosen by a god of their own choosing? With mainstream media dominated by those complicit in this duplicity, how can this chokehold be released?
As a duped electorate slowly awakens to how they were deceived—and by whom—how do Americans make amends for the damage done by their Israeli-compliant lawmakers?
Those determined to defeat this ‘enemy within’ must first make this treason transparent. As the common source of this corruption becomes apparent, accountability can commence.
Americans do not yet grasp that we have long been the target of ongoing capital crimes. Zionists know that our continued ignorance is the key to their continued impunity. With knowledge comes the power to prosecute those complicit. Therein lies the challenge.
Aware of the future that awaits them, Zionists are becoming desperate and even more dangerous. An escalation of violence is assured until the full force of international law is turned on those who have long flaunted the law in pursuit of their extremist agenda.
by James M. Rockefeller
Zionist operatives ambushed veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas, a friend and a great American. When they won, America lost.
When reviewing the unedited video of her “interview,” what you see is a rabbi rephrasing her answers to a question about Israel. Her response: “They should get the hell out of Palestine.“ The United Nations long ago endorsed that stance.
It was not Thomas but the rabbi that offended the Jewish community. Language cited as “anti-Semitic” came not from her but from responses that the rabbi restated as leading questions. She simply spoke the truth: Jewish settlers should leave the occupied territories and, as she rightly said: “go home.”
The rabbi, an operative for the Anti-Defamation League, knew what he was doing when he ensnared this frail and distinguished 89-year old journalist. The ADL and other Zionist strategists have long sought her removal from this influential position.
This operation was carried out as part of Jewish Heritage Week, a first in White House history. Nothing was said about the perils to which America has long been subjected due to its entangled alliance with the Jewish state.
The campaign to force Thomas’ removal was led by former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. Recall that Fleischer is the Zionist insider who repeatedly insisted that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
How did those seeking recognition for their “Jewishness” repay the trust of a nation and its people? Zionist operatives targeted the only reporter who challenged Israel’s nuclear weapons program. By bushwhacking her on the White House lawn, Zionists reconfirmed that they are, in fact, in control.
No one dared mention how Zionist Heritage has ravaged America from within. Or how Zionism was aided by a series of pathetic presidents and advisers offering their unflinching support for an increasingly unstable Israeli leadership.
The Tel Aviv Two-Step
In the same news cycle when the current White House press secretary portrayed Thomas’ remarks as “reprehensible,” nothing was said about the Turkish-American teenager shot in the head when Israeli forces boarded a Gaza relief flotilla. As “our” media fixated on Ms. Thomas, the public’s attention was diverted from that murder.
What is reprehensible is this: no U.S. journalist has shown the courage to challenge a U.S. president on Israel. When President Obama gave his first news conference, it was Helen Thomas who asked which country in the Middle East has nuclear weapons. Rather than reply, he did the Tel Aviv Two-Step and avoided her question.
That’s a key reason an ADL operative targeted her. The strategic objective: to serve notice that NO ONE can pose honest questions about the many perils that the U.S.-Israel “special relationship” poses to the security of the U.S. and other nations.
When the latest “terrorist incident” fizzled in Times Square, the U.N. was then advancing an agenda pursued by President John F. Kennedy in the 1960s: a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. In a historic U.N. vote, even the U.S. agreed—over Israeli objections—to make the Middle East a Nuclear Free Zone.
That treaty would mandate that Israel dismantle its nuclear arsenal. An idealistic young U.S. president was vigorously pursuing that goal when his life was brought to an abrupt end. As the first woman to serve as a White House correspondent, Helen Thomas knew Kennedy as the first of ten presidents she covered over five decades.
This history was well known to those who brought her truth-seeking career to an abrupt end. That’s why she was ambushed. She was the last mainstream American journalist who dared question a U.S. President about Israel’s nuclear weapons.
Had Zionists not removed her, they knew she would have asked President Obama: “When is the U.S. going to pressure its ally to give up a nuclear arsenal estimated to be in excess 200 nuclear warheads?”
Zionists won this round. No remaining White House correspondent is likely to ask the hard questions about Israel’s impact on America’s national security interests. ADL operatives, acting on behalf of a foreign government, made sure of it.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama’s love fest with the Jewish state continues while Zionist policies persist in undermining America’s credibility and endangering U.S. troops abroad.
Today’s White House resident resembles previous occupants in his inability to say no to Zionist demands. By his silence, he enabled an agent of a foreign government to silence one of America’s most trusted voices covering the White House.
Helen Thomas knows the scope and scale of Zionist operations inside the U.S. She saw it firsthand through ten presidencies from both major U.S. political parties.
By silencing this voice of truth, Israel’s goals were advanced. Now the American public can once again be denied the facts they require to make informed choices.
An international businessman, Mr. Rockefeller resides in Arizona
When waging modern warfare, often the loudest sound is the one you don’t hear
Why is no one reporting that “Faisal the Fizzler” is tied to Israeli-American Leon Black and Israel-dominated organized crime syndicates dating back to the 1920s? Why is no one reporting the ties to junk bond king and Israeli-American Michael Milken? How can Americans make informed choices without access to the real facts?
Faisal Sharzad—AKA The Times Square Fizzler—reportedly was trained by the “Pakistan Taliban” for a deadly deed that went horribly wrong.
Not only did he lock his keys in the car, including his apartment key, his Rube Goldberg contraption of alarm clocks, Walmart propane tanks and firecrackers failed to explode.
Apparently he was also expertly trained to purchase fertilizer that could not possibly explode.
Happily, Pakistani Evil Doers did not train him to drive. He could have ended up in New Jersey.
Somehow he found his way to one of the busiest streets in midtown Manhattan just as the United Nations—in midtown Manhattan—was preparing to debate a treaty to create a Middle East free of nuclear weapons.
Was that part of the story missing from the Fox News coverage you saw of this incident? In truth, for that non-coverage, any mainstream media outlet would suffice.
That U.N. treaty, first proposed in 1995, would force Israel to forfeit its nuclear weapons, a goal first sought by President John F. Kennedy in June 1963. We know how that worked out.
What’s become of this Muslim Evil Doer after he miraculously found his way to Times Square—after miraculously eluding airport security during his 16 trips abroad to train with the Pakistan Taliban? Did he come and go through the same airports where security was provided by ICTS, the Israeli firm that played host to the dreaded and oft-cited “Christmas Day Bomber“?
Though Faisal refreshed a flagging storyline—The Global War on Terrorism—the Fizzler’s storyline has since become problematic. Let’s take a closer look.
News You Can Trust
CNN briefly showed a photo of Apollo Management, Sharzad’s employer. That photo appeared on CNN for roughly one second. End of story and no mention since. Why?
Here’s the online Newsweek account of where the Fizzler worked from 2006-2009:
May 4 (Bloomberg) — Faisal Shahzad, charged with attempting to bomb New York’s Times Square, worked for three years at a company controlled by Leon Black’s private-equity firm, Apollo Management LP.
Who is Leon Black? What is Apollo? And why isn’t Shahzad’s three years of employment there newsworthy?
Remember Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood Shooter? His job history provided key clues to his bizarre behavior. Is that why Hasan too has so quickly disappeared from the news?
Are the Clues Hidden in Plain Sight?
Imagine this: what if the intelligence that induced the U.S. to war in Iraq was “fixed” around a preset goal. What if the common source of that treachery was poised to become transparent?
If you were complicit in a deception of that magnitude—a clear act of treason—how would you obscure the facts? What measures would you take to sustain the storyline?
If you are the Evil Doer, how would you maintain a Muslim Evil Doer narrative? What would be required to create and sustain a storyline built on a belief in the threat of Islamo fascism?
What happens to that storyline if the pre-war intelligence is proven a fiction traceable to a common source? What then for the storytellers?
For those marketing The Clash of Civilizations, Major Hasan’s psychotic break at Fort Hood in Texas was a well-timed blessing. Likewise for the Christmas Day Bomber and the Times Square Terrorist.
See if you can detect a common thread in this marketing of the Hasan threat by Family Security Matters:
- President Carol Taber described this incident as “the Ft. Hood terrorist attack” by an “Islamist gunman.”
- Editor Pam Meister promoted “the shocking TRUTH (sic) behind these attacks so that we might ward off those yet to come.”
- Executive Vice-President Linda Cohen, a trustee of the Anti-Defamation League, offered this advice: “No one is safe now. Not you, not the military, not your children, not office workers nor subway riders, nor anyone who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Why was the Times Square Fizzler at just the right place at just the right time?
Advancing the Narrative
Is there a precedent for combining aberrant personal behavior and “terrorism” to advance a preset agenda? Perhaps you recall the sniper attacks around Washington, D.C. in October 2002?
That murder spree began one day before debate commenced on Senate Resolution 46 proposed by Senator Joe Lieberman to authorize the use of U.S. forces in Iraq.
In the immediate aftermath of 911, Lieberman and Arizona Senator John McCain urged that the U.S. focus its forces not on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan but on regime change in Iraq.
Meanwhile the nation’s capital became a city under siege as those random attacks created widespread insecurity and heightened anxiety as serial murders left ten dead and three wounded over a 10-day period.
Those murders quickly transformed the emotionally wrenching terror of 911 into a personal reality for Washington residents, including U.S. lawmakers pondering whether to invade Iraq in response to that terror.
Meanwhile Lieberman and McCain—citing phony intelligence fixed around a preconceived goal—promoted a U.S. military invasion of a nation that had no hand in that mass murder.
Assets and Transnational Treason
Was Faisal Sharzad a Pakistani patsy? In the parlance of psychological operations (psy-ops), was he an “asset”?
An asset is a term from psy-ops used to describe someone whose personality has been profiled in great depth. A reliable asset can be catalyzed to act out known personality traits in ways that advance an agenda based on the time, place and circumstances of that catalyst. While an asset’s behavior is never 100% foreseeable, it is reliable within an acceptable range of probabilities. Timing is everything.
Walk Monica Lewinsky in front of Bill Clinton, what was the probability of his response? If a U.S. official orders that an American Muslim be held for 18 months in solitary confinement in a jail in Yemen, what’s the probability that Anwar al-Aswlaki would emerge radicalized and bearing a grudge against the U.S.?
The facts suggest that Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan was such an asset. Don’t expect to find this analysis on the Rupert Murdoch-controlled Fox News or in his many newspapers. Or on CNN despite its branding as “The Most Trusted Name in News.”
Assets are typically profiled and developed over lengthy periods of time. Their potential to act out a known personality disorder is held in reserve in much the same way that a military commander holds troops in reserve for deployment at an opportune time. Timing is the point.
How is an asset developed in plain sight and “tasked” at the opportune time? Only a careful investigation can identify those influences particular to Dr. Hasan. Or to Faisal Sharzad. A good faith investigation would includes the decisions that led to Dr. Hasan’s transfer to Ft. Hood and the circumstances there that triggered his violent behavior.
That’s also true for The Times Square Fizzler. While obviously not the brightest light in the shed, he was sufficiently competent to drive a car. And apparently he was bright enough to do financial analysis for Leon Black even though he bought the wrong fertilizer at Walmart.
God only knows where he bought the fireworks. Perhaps in New Jersey.
A similar history of befuddled behavior surrounds the comically inept Christmas Day Bomber, a young Nigerian whose failed “terrorist incident” mirrors that of Sharzad. An unidentified Indian gentleman led The Crotch Bomber through Amsterdam airport security without a passport where he boarded a flight to the U.S.
Here’s an experiment. Try entering Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport without a passport. Then try boarding an international flight to the U.S. Did it help that airport security was managed by ICTS, an Israeli firm. What’s the common component in each of these well-timed “incidents?”
Who had the means, motive, opportunity and insider intelligence to succeed with this operation. Likewise to perpetrate this “terrorist” act in midtown Manhattan? What role was played by Leon Black and Apollo management?
Is The New York Times correct in its May 22nd editorial: “As the aborted Times Square and Christmas Day bombings proved, militant groups are determined to strike here again.” Is that what these incidents “proved”? Really?
Is it sufficient to report that this latest incident is traceable to the “Pakistan Taliban”? Does that alone—and in isolation—explain how such operations are pre-staged and orchestrated? Is it really that simple?
As a combat-stress psychiatrist, Dr. Hasan dealt daily with injured and mentally troubled veterans at Walter Reed Hospital where the most grievously wounded from Iraq and Afghanistan are sent for treatment. Many of them are amputees, burned, disfigured, brain-damaged or otherwise handicapped for life. Their care—or lack thereof—is a national scandal that Dr. Hasan experienced up-close and personal.
While coping with that vicarious trauma, Dr. Hasan was taunted for his Muslim beliefs. He was also harassed and ridiculed for his Middle Eastern heritage even though he was born, raised and educated in the U.S. Meanwhile he’s treating injured troops who have been trained to hate Muslims.
What happened to Faisal Sharzad during his three years at Apollo? Did he encounter an experience similar to Hasan? Is that why the Leon Black connection disappeared so quickly?
To answer that question would have required a closer look at the curious history of Mr. Black, his investment banking firm and a deeper inquiry into the question of what is “proven” by this latest in a series of well-timed, high profile ‘terrorist incidents.’
The Mental Environment
The National Crime Syndicate convened its first nationwide conference in Atlantic City in 1929. That’s when and where the U.S. component of transnational organized crime divided the U.S. into 24 exclusive markets in order to put an end to the political complications that accompanied murderous disputes over territory.
The allocation of those territories was finalized in 1931 at a Jews-only conclave at the Franconia Hotel in Manhattan. Five of the 24 markets were established in and around New York City.
‘The Outfit’ has long been a source of pop culture narratives, including The Godfather movies starring Marlon Brando and Al Pacino and The Sopranos, a popular television series. Those storylines branded organized crime as Italian or Sicilian with Jews playing only a minor role.
This is Hollywood after all, home of the skilled storyteller and the master myth-maker.
To say Sicilian or Italian organized crime will not unleash the hounds. To say Jewish organized crime assures a toxic charge of anti-Semitism—unless you’re Jewish. In that case, the offense is downgraded to “self-hating Jew.” Those remain the only two alternatives for anyone willing speaking candidly—and factually—about trans-generational organized crime.
Estonian Kalle Lasn saw firsthand how myth could displace facts in plain sight by psy-ops specialists skilled at targeting the mental environment. In March 2004, he published an article in Adbusters, a Vancouver-based magazine that he founded. First he cited key facts: less than three percent of Americans are Jewish (1.7% according to most sources). Yet when he examined a list of the top 50 neoconservatives advocating war in Iraq, 26 were Jewish (52%).
Noting the wildly disproportionate numbers, he titled his article: “Why Won’t Anyone Say They’re Jewish?” He soon found out. He was attacked as an “anti-Semite” just for asking the question.
Don’t ask. Don’t tell.
Yet the facts remain indisputable—both for the Neocons and for those who dominate transnational organized crime. The bulk of those who “fixed” U.S. intelligence to invade Iraq were either Jewish or “assets” whose careers were nurtured by pro-Israelis.
With his personal familiarity with sophisticated psy-ops, Lasn chose as his subtitle for Adbusters: The Journal of the Mental Environment. Could that environment be the target of this series of well-timed “terrorist incidents”? Were these incidents staged to advance and reinvigorate a faltering storyline with incidents that could plausibly be blamed on Muslim Evil Doers? Is Faisal the Fizzler playing an unwitting role as part of an ongoing psy-ops? What about the role played by Fox News? CNN?
Only a good faith investigation can answer that question. The answer may require a closer look at Leon Black and a glimpse into the “fields within fields…within fields” of relationships through which organized crime operates across time and distance.
Discrediting and Disabling the U.S.
Leon Black first appeared on the national scene in 1975 when his father “fell” to his death from the 44th floor of Manhattan’s Pan Am Building. Two years later, the son emerged as head of mergers and acquisitions and co-head of corporate finance in the Manhattan office of Drexel Burnham Lambert where he worked closely with Michael Milken, the firm’s “junk bond” specialist in Beverly Hills.
In the 1970s, Cincinnati’s Carl Lindner and his American Financial Group began investing in United Fruit. To escape the firm’s notorious past, its name was changed to United Brands and then Chiquita Brands International. After the death of CEO Eli Black, Lindner assumed control.
United Fruit became a key conduit for moving Israeli arms into covert wars throughout Latin America, culminating in the Iran-Contra scandal of 1987. That scandal discredited the presidency of Ronald Reagan when he was forced to concede that his administration sold arms to Iran, an avowed enemy, and used the funds to arm Nicaraguan rebels despite a Congressional ban.
The term “Banana Republic” traces to the corrupting influence of United Fruit. The U.S. was discredited throughout Latin America and the Caribbean by the firm’s multi-decade bribery of foreign officials and its use of force to control, impoverish and routinely murder indigenous peoples.
Lindner’s American Financial Group was an early investor in Drexel’s high-yield (“junk”) securities packaged by Milken in deals coordinated with Leon Black in midtown Manhattan. Other early junk bond investors included insurance firms owned by Saul Steinberg and Meshulam Riklis.
Riklis’ Rapid-American Corp. became an acquisition vehicle for Lerner Shops, Playtex and RKO film studios, previously owned in part by bootlegger and stock swindler Joseph P. Kennedy, the politically ambitious father of John F. Kennedy. JFK was murdered five months after he sought to end Israel’s nuclear weapons program in order to preclude a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
In 1967, in one of the first junk bond-financed leveraged buyouts (Michael Milken was still an undergraduate at the University of California Berkeley) Riklis acquired Lewis Rosenstiel’s shares in Schenley Industries based in Cincinnati, Lindner’s hometown.
The Istanbul-born Riklis paid for Schenley with junk bonds issued by Rapid-American, a firm partly owned by Lindner. Under Lindner’s leadership, United Fruit’s purchase of 40% of Rapid-American reportedly provided majority owner Riklis and his colleagues with resources to purchase for Israeli General Ariel Sharon his ranch in Israel’s Negev Desert where the Jewish state’s nuclear arsenal was developed at the Dimona reactor facility.
Fields within Fields
Rosenstiel’s wife, Leonore, left him to marry Walter Annenberg, Ronald Reagan’s “best friend for 50 years” according to Nancy Reagan. Annenberg also served as Richard Nixon’s ambassador to Great Britain. Son of Chicago mobster Moses “Moe” Annenberg, Walter laundered profits from the family’s racing-wire service through Triangle Publications, publisher of T.V. Guide and Seventeen.
As the National Crime Syndicate was being formed, 1929-31, the Annenberg-inspired racing wire service provided the sinew that bound together organized crime’s gambling operations dispersed across the U.S. and Canada and into Mexico and Cuba. As Walter Annenberg steadily distanced himself from organized crime beginning in the late 1940s, he steadily gained legitimacy and influence in Republican Party politics through his ownership of The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Leonore Annenberg was raised by her uncle, Harry Cohn, head of Columbia Pictures. First married to Belden Kattleman, a Las Vegas businessman, she then married Rosenstiel. During Prohibition, Rosenstiel bootlegged liquor from England, Europe, and Canada through Saint Pierre and then by truck into Cincinnati, building what became Schenley Distillers.
One of Rosenstiel’s closest colleagues (and competitors) was Canadian Sam Bronfman whose Distillers Corporation made a fortune in bootlegging during Prohibition in collaboration with organized crime, including Chicago’s fabled Al “Scarface” Capone. Bronfman (Yiddish for “liquor man”) acquired in 1928 what became Seagram Co. Ltd. From that fortune emerged funding for the World Jewish Congress.
Prohibition and gambling capitalized organized crime. The combination of the Annenberg racing wire and high-profit bootlegging created a nationwide distribution network with those 24 territories remaining as key nodes in this transnational network. The political corruption from that era identified pliable and reliable assets whose political careers could be nurtured along with their successors, a key role assumed by the Israel lobby as this syndicate became more sophisticated and its operations moved more deeply into government operations.
Johnny Lazio was a key participant in the 1929 Atlantic City conference. Lazio represented the Pendergast political machine from Kansas City that was then nurturing the political career of Harry Truman. Two decades later, this asset of organized crime was persuaded as president to extend state recognition to this syndicate after its terrorist operatives established a post-WWII beachhead in the oil-rich Middle East.
Enabling the Networks
In 1989, Annenberg liquidated $3 billion of his wealth, including The Racing Form, in a sale to Rupert Murdoch. With those proceeds, he donated $150 million to Annenberg communication schools at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Southern California.
Annenberg friend Ronald Reagan traces his political career to Chicago when Annenberg, Chicagoan Jules Stein and Cleveland’s Lew Wasserman helped “brand” the actor in the early days of television as the friendly face of General Electric Theater. With the help of labor consigliere Sydney Korshak, Reagan assumed the presidency of the Screen Actor’s Guild. With Nancy on the board, Reagan ensured that the Guild extended a “special exemption” to the Stein/Wasserman-led Music Corporation of America. That exemption provided MCA a competitive advantage that gained the firm a disproportionate influence in music, television and film-making.
While president, Ronnie and Nancy routinely spent their New Year’s vacation at Sunnylands, Annenberg’s extensive estate in Rancho Mirage, California near Palm Springs. Walter’s father also gravitated to sunnier climes. After betraying a partner in Chicago, Moe fled to south Florida to seek the protection of National Crime Syndicate “Chairman” Meyer Lansky until he and his son relocated to Pennsylvania to “go legit.”
The Annenberg political savvy found its way back to Chicago to nurture the political prospects of an articulate young political activist whose work there with the Annenberg Education Challenge gained him statewide and then nationwide political exposure. When elected president in 2008, Barack Obama appointed Eric Holder as his Attorney General, former counsel to Carl Lindner and Chiquita (aka United Fruit).
As the Holder-led Department of Justice sought to brand Faisal the Fizzler as evidence of Pakistani Evil Doing, Senator Kit Bond, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee complained that Holder had “executed a hostile takeover of the intelligence community.”
Fields Within Fields…within Fields
Why pursue this circuitous route in an account of the “Times Square Terrorist”? Read on to close the circle.
In the mid-1950s, former Phoenix mobster Gus Greenbaum managed and then sold the Riviera Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, one of the premier properties controlled by the Chicago Outfit. The buyer was Cincinnatian Riklis, a former member of the Haganah, a paramilitary outfit active in terrorizing Palestinians from 1920 to 1948 when this outfit morphed into the Israel Defense Forces.
Riklis tutored Milken, then a young bond broker. Riklis was reportedly Milken’s first customer as Milken morphed into a major figure in the booming market for leveraged buyouts (LBOs) that emerged during the Reagan era. Fellow Cincinnatian Carl Lindner emerged as a father figure to Milken who oversaw along with Leon Black a massive “control fraud” at Lincoln Savings and Loan in Phoenix, Arizona.
The face on this nationwide fraud was Phoenix-based Charles Keating who previously served as general counsel to the Linder-controlled, Cincinnati-based American Financial Group.
Arizona Senator John McCain led a group of five Senators known as “the Keating Five” whose delay of needed reforms in the S&L industry raised the taxpayer cost of that sophisticated fraud by an additional $50 billion, to exceed $150 billion. An even more sophisticated version of mortgage fraud would emerge two decades later at a far-larger cost.
Lindner boasts on the firm’s website that he is the “largest non-Jewish contributor to Jewish causes in the U.S.” Alan Greenspan, then working for J.P. Morgan, was retained by Keating to help recruit the Keating Five.
To succeed with that task, Greenspan deployed the goodwill and political capital amassed as chairman of an early 1980′s Social Security Commission (“the Greenspan Commission”). Its 1983 recommendation: Americans should work longer and pay higher payroll taxes.
A confidante of radical free market theorist Ayn Rand (Russian Alisa Rosenbaum), Greenspan reemerged as the Reagan-appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve where over the next 18 years he enabled the subprime mortgage fraud with sustained low interest rates and enthusiastic support for what this Rand disciple described as “financial innovation.”
John McCain wrote to Keating in 1983 soon after his first Congressional victory in 1982: “Of the many things to be grateful for in this world, the friendship of the Keating family is certainly among the most meaningful.” McCain’s top campaign supporters included Keating and father-in-law Jim Hensley.
Here begins the closing of the circle connecting the savings and loan fraud of the 1980s and the subprime mortgage fraud two decades later. And, the facts suggest, the role of misdirection aided by this latest in an ongoing series of well-timed “terrorist” incidents blamed on Muslim Evil Doers.
Notorious mobster Bugsy Siegel is widely credited with founding Las Vegas as a National Crime Syndicate haven for gambling and prostitution when he built The Flamingo, an early casino named after Virginia Hill, his mob courier girlfriend from Alabama who used Flamingo as her showgirl stage name.
The syndicate maintained discipline through Murder, Inc., a cadre of hit men. When Siegel was discovered stealing from The Outfit, his murder in 1947 required that the syndicate relocate Gus Greenbaum to Las Vegas from Phoenix, leaving Kemper Marley in charge of the syndicate’s statewide operation in Arizona. Marley hired Jim and Gene Hensley.
After two close scrapes with federal liquor law violations for which the Hensley brothers reportedly took the heat, Jim Hensley emerged with a beer distributorship that has since grown to the fifth largest in the nation—owned by Cindy Hensley McCain. Hensley’s Arizona lawyer, William Rehnquist, was appointed by Reagan as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
McCain met Hensley, then 24, when he was the married 42-year old U.S. Navy liaison to the U.S. Senate. Soon divorced, remarried and relocated to Arizona, he worked on public relations for his father-in-law while the Marley machine positioned this classic asset for election to the Congress—four years before Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater’s anticipated retirement from the Senate
After 911, Republican Senator McCain emerged alongside Democrat Joe Lieberman as the most insistent high-profile advocates for the invasion of Iraq. Both Senators marketed that war with intelligence now known to be false. Lieberman soon became chair of the Senate Committee in charge of Homeland Security. In that position, he collaborated with Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, a former governor of Pennsylvania and a product of the Annenberg political machine.
Ridge stepped in when New York Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik, the initial appointee of G.W. Bush, withdrew after reports were leaked of his close ties to organized crime. Ridge was succeeded by Michael Chertoff, a rabbi’s son and, on 911, a senior official in the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. With the election of Chicagoan Obama, who former Clinton White House counsel Abner Mikva (from Chicago) described as our “first Jewish president,” the Secretary of Homeland Security became Janet Napolitano, a former governor from mobbed-up Arizona.
Are these complex webs of relationships coincidental? Or is this typical of the overlapping relationships common to syndicate operations? Is this how organized crime is sustained through fields-within-fields of relationships that stretch across time, distance and, as here, both major political parties?
It should be noted that when Bugsy Siegel was murdered by Murder, Inc., The Outfit also appointed a replacement to oversee its operations in Los Angeles where Siegel once shared an apartment with movie star George Raft. The appointee was Mickey Cohen who is best remembered for sponsoring a mobster-only fundraiser for Richard Nixon’s 1950 Senate campaign for which he raised $75,000 ($668,000 in 2010 dollars).
After losing to JFK in the 1960 presidential election and then the California governor’s race to Pat Brown in 1962, Nixon relocated to New York where the large Jewish law firm of Mudge, Rose, et.al. was renamed Nixon, Mudge, Rose, et.al. With funding support from relationships pivoting off Greater New York, the advertising firm of J. Walter Thompson helped “rebrand” Nixon for the 1968 elections.
Aided by the resignation of Lyndon Johnson and the murder of Robert Kennedy, Nixon emerged victorious. Law partner Leonard Garment became his White House counsel and partner John Mitchell his Attorney General. His chief of staff was H.R. “Bob” Haldeman, a former executive at J. Walter Thompson. Walter Annenberg was appointed Ambassador to Great Britain.
Fields Within Fields…Within Fields of Relationships
What does this nonlinear account have to do with the Fort Hood Shooter, the Crotch Bomb Sizzler and the Faisal the Fizzler? Are such “terrorist incidents” typical of how war is waged in the mental environment by creating—and constantly refreshing—a narrative? If so, who would have the motivation to do so?
Does a renewed fear of terrorism help divert attention away from the latest massive financial fraud? And from the need for reforms that are not yet forthcoming—from either major political party? Meanwhile key financial institutions remain “too big to fail.”
Are these insecurity-inducing “incidents” a form of marketing? Are they akin to selling us a product? Or a president?
Do they ensure defense spending is sustained while social services are sliced? Is it coincidental that Israel is the world’s third largest arms exporter?
Do these terrorist “incidents” provide clues to how we are persuaded to assume more debt to wage more wars with no end in sight? Could these incidents be business-as-usual for transnational organized crime?
Was the same criminal syndicate involved in the S&L fraud also active in the Enron fraud? The Dotcom crash? The subprime fraud? The half-a-loaf approach to “financial reform”?
Did these massive financial “incidents” just happen? Or were they stage-managed from the shadows in an alliance between policy-making assets and transnational organized crime?
As counsel to the Senate Finance Committee (1980-87), I witnessed firsthand the embrace of debt-financed “supply-side economics” during the first year of the Reagan presidency. Its primary financial result was to dramatically increase the “free cash flow” essential to LBOs (leverage buyouts). At a time when the securitized debt of the U.S. hovered around $900 billion, this “fiscal conservative” championed a bill that authorized us to borrow $872 billion. And that’s before the massive deficit-financed buildup in the defense industry.
While those deficit-funded subsidies were cut back slightly in future years, their impact was certain to concentrate wealth and income and thereby undermine both democracy and markets—all in the name of enhancing our freedom. As a colleague rightly concluded, we got the mortgage (the deficits) while they got the house–the income-producing assets financed with that “free cash flow.”
Is it coincidence that private equity/LBO firms most enriched by this debt-financed change in policy are also best positioned to recapitalize the banks most devastated by this latest round of debt-financed excess? Throughout history, debt has always been the prize for those adept at inducing nations to war. Is this all too familiar? Are these firms our Wall Street Dons?
In 1948, the Joint Chiefs of Staff cautioned Harry Truman against granting sovereign recognition to an extremist enclave that was already using ethnic cleansing to terrorize the indigenous population and occupy lands adjoining the Muslim-dominant Middle East.
Their rationale: Palestinian land was rightly theirs as The Chosen because it was long ago given to them—by a God of their own choosing.
Truman was warned by U.S. military leaders about the “fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders” and their plans for “Jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.” Truman chose not to follow their advice nor that of his Secretary of State, former WWII General George C. Marshall who viewed recognition as a geopolitical disaster. He assured Truman that he would vote against him.
Did our military leaders fail to grasp the scope and scale of the threat posed by these extremists? Did these “fanatical concepts” include a plan to deceive the U.S. so that we would deploy our military to pursue their expansionist agenda for dominance in the region? Is that why a Democratic president’s policy in the Middle East is so little changed from that of Republican G.W. Bush?
Working as a transnational criminal syndicate, did these extremists collaborate to damage the U.S. economy with disabling debt and discredit the U.S. abroad with an endless and unwinnable war? Could the presence of this syndicate help explain why the U.S. continues to dig itself deeper into debt regardless which political party is in power?
Could the criminal roots of this operation explain why we hear nothing about Leon Black’s employment of the Times Square Fizzler?
Is the sound of silence speaking to us with an eloquence we do not yet understand?
Israeli war-planners face a dilemma. After more than six decades of duplicitous behavior, their playbook is pretty well played out. Not that Tel Aviv will not deceive again. Or at least try. Odds are we’ll see another round of either entropy or outrage or some lethal combination.
Their outrage tactics are well understood. This serial agent provocateur has long shaped events from the shadows by provoking well-profiled targets to respond to well-planned provocations.
With in-depth profiling, the response becomes a matter of probabilities. Thus Israel’s well-deserved reputation as the master of mental manipulation based on their use of game theory algorithms that anticipate reactions to provocations along with the reactions to those reactions.
Control enough of the variables and the desired outcome becomes foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. Therein lies the genius (others say the psychopathy) of those for whom conflicts serve as a profitable sideline while they pursue broader geopolitical goals.
In game theory war planning, the reaction of “the mark” emerges in the foreground while the agent provocateur disappears into the background. The response to that reaction then enables the provocateur to slip even deeper into the shadows, further obscuring the genius of the instigator.
Game theory modeling is a useful skill for a nation that built much of its economy on arms sales. Much of the rest is reliant on information technology. Those technologies enable Israelis to operate undetected in that invisible domain where data is the most critical form of capital. That includes financial markets where timely information has long been the most valuable asset.
Game Theory and 911
When provoked by a mass murder on American soil, we had elected to office a president with a known array of easily profiled dysfunctions. With phony intelligence, he was induced to order the U.S. military to invade a nation that had no hand in that event. From a game theory perspective, that is genuine genius.
Consistent with game theory war planning, that invasion advanced an Israeli strategy for “securing the realm” while expanding its sphere of influence well beyond its borders.
Not only was the U.S. induced to discredit itself by that (easily modeled) reaction, our response over-extended our military, destroyed our credibility and further weakened our already debt-weakened economy. All these effects are consistent with game theory modeling.
Even a cursory review of history confirms that debt is always the prize for those skilled at catalyzing serial conflicts. Some commentators might call that financial genius.
According to Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz, the fiscal cost may reach $3 trillion, all of it borrowed—a first. At the end of WWII, the U.S. had half the world’s productive power.
That financial strength ensured our bonds would remain dominant for at least two generations. Look at us now. The interest expense alone for this conflict could cost us $700 billion.
These game theory-foreseeable results suggest how war can be waged on a nation from within that nation—while the instigators fade into the mist. That too is a form of genius.
Entropy and Presidential Longevity
The next step in this game theory warfare may involve an entropy operation. Though less well known than run-of-the-mill provocations, this component also suggests applied genius.
As with the source of the outrage from provocations, the instigators of entropy strategies seek refuge in the shadows. That era may soon come to a close as “the mark” (the American public) grasps the regularity—and the lengthy premeditation—with which such duplicity is deployed.
For instance, 47 years ago, President John F. Kennedy sought to halt in its infancy a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In June 1963, he wrote the last in a series of insistent letters to Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion. Each of those letters sought what Israel now demands of Iran: international inspections of its nuclear facilities.
The key difference: JFK knew for certain that Israeli officials, while insisting the Zionist enclave was a loyal friend and ally, lied to him about their nuclear weapons program at the Dimona reactor facility in the Negev Desert. We now know the Israelis were then secretly shipping highly enriched uranium to Dimona from at least one U.S. nuclear facility in Pennsylvania.
Best estimates date to sometime between 1962 and 1964 when Israel produced its first weapon. Their nuclear arsenal is now estimated at 200-600 warheads plus possibly hundreds of “dirty” devices and other nuclear-related weaponry.
Kennedy’s letter to Ben-Gurion was not cordial. The words chosen were drawn not from diplomacy but from the instructions that a judge provides a jury to assess criminal culpability.
In that brusque letter, a U.S. commander-in-chief demanded proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Zionists were not developing nuclear weapons. His insistence left no room for this purported ally to maneuver—except to deploy entropy as a means to avoid accountability.
The day after that June 15th letter was cabled to Tel Aviv for delivery by the U.S. ambassador, Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned citing undisclosed personal reasons. Because his resignation was announced before the cabled letter could be physically delivered, Israeli authors claim that Kennedy’s message failed to reach Ben-Gurion.
That interpretative gloss ignores what we now know about Israeli operations inside serial U.S. presidencies. And about Tel Aviv’s routine intercept of White House communications, particularly those most critical to our national security.
That duplicity has only rarely been made public. Typical was the behavior of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard who provided Tel Aviv more than one million pages of classified materials. This Israeli operation—run from inside our government—compromised the entirety of our national security apparatus in which U.S. taxpayers had invested trillions of dollars.
When Ben-Gurion deprived President Kennedy of an Israeli government with which to negotiate, the resulting entropy denied the U.S. a critical strategic advantage. That entropy also set in motion the nuclear dynamics that JFK and his advisers feared a half-century ago.
When assessing the cost of the U.S.-Israeli relationship, what cost in dollars, lives and foregone opportunities should Americans put on this trans-generational deceit?
The consistency of Israel’s duplicitous conduct raises difficult questions about the ability to hold such religious extremists accountable—particularly a nuclear-armed enclave that considers its people Chosen by God and accountable only to God.
The Khazars vs. the Kennedys
During this same 1962-63 period, Senator William J. Fulbright of Arkansas, chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, convened hearings on the legal status of the American Zionist Council. The AZC received funds from the Jewish Agency, the predecessor to the state of Israel.
As a recipient of U.S. funds, the Agency used those funds to lobby for more funds. Under U.S. law, that conduct required the AZC to register as a foreign agent.
In seeking that registration, Fulbright was joined by Attorney General Robert Kennedy. Their effort was delayed by the fledgling Israel lobby and then ended with JFK’s assassination.
Concerns about Zionist influence on U.S. policy continued to grow among well-informed legislators. By 1973, Senator Fulbright could announce with confidence: “Israel controls the U.S. Senate.” In 1974, he lost his Senate seat.
Fast-forward to today and imagine a Middle East without an enclave of nuclear-armed Zionist extremists. The threat that JFK posed to their arsenal—and to their geopolitical goals—was resolved five months after Ben-Gurion’s resignation.
When Vice President Lyndon Johnson was sworn in as Kennedy’s successor, he immediately increased the U.S. budget for arms to Israel.
Imagine the Zionist influence on U.S. policy had Fulbright and the Kennedys succeeded in requiring that the lobby register as what it was and remains: a foreign agent.
Following John Kennedy’s removal in November 1963, Johnson appointed Nicholas Katzenbach as his Attorney General to replace Robert Kennedy who LBJ loathed. Soon thereafter, the AZC evaded registration as it morphed into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and began the pretense, still ongoing, that AIPAC operates in the U.S. as a domestic lobby.
[AIPAC and dozens of affiliate organizations coordinate a transnational network of pro-Israeli political operations commonly known as “the Israel lobby.”]
The Kennedy-Fulbright threat to the Zionists’ geopolitical goals reemerged five years later when Robert Kennedy announced his candidacy for the presidency during the height of an unpopular war. That war was vastly expanded under Johnson’s leadership.
Resolving the Kennedy Problem
From a game theory perspective, a second Kennedy presidency presented Tel Aviv with at least four troubling variables to manage.
First, Robert Kennedy’s peace candidacy offered the possibility of a speedy end to the war in Vietnam. Less war meant not only less debt but also less ability to arm Israel with U.S. weapons.
Second, his election so soon after the Six-Day War presented the possibility that a U.S. commander-in-chief might inquire into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that left 34 Americans dead and 175 wounded. Covered up by Johnson with the help of Admiral John McCain, Jr., an open inquiry threatened the carefully orchestrated perception that Israel was a victim rather than an aggressor in taking land that fueled outrage throughout the region.
Third, RFK’s global perspective on peace suggested that he might pursue his brother’s agenda and target Israel’s nuclear arsenal in order to preclude a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Fourth, with Fulbright still wielding substantial influence on U.S. foreign policy, a second Kennedy administration revived concerns about renewed restrictions on the domestic activities of the expansive Israel lobby.
When this charismatic presidential contender surged in nationwide political polls, those strategic variables were transformed from possibilities into probabilities. All four were resolved on June 5, 1968 at a campaign event held in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.
Robert Kennedy’s death at the hand of Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian émigré, coincided with the first anniversary of the Six-Day War.
The assassin later cited as his motive Kennedy’s campaign pledge to provide more fighter jets to Israel. That claim was used by Tel Aviv to argue its case for more U.S. arms.
With that second high-profile murder, the road to the presidency was cleared for former Vice-President Richard Nixon. When lobbied by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, he agreed to embrace the “ambiguous” status that the Zionists sought for their nuclear arsenal.
When waging game theory warfare, uncertainty is often a powerful persuader and a force multiplier.
Were these assassinations part of an entropy strategy? Was murder used to manage variables that posed a threat to a non-transparent geopolitical goals? Though the evidence remains murky, the outcome is consistent with an oft-recurring game theory modus operandi.
Neither U.S. national security nor federal law enforcement recovered from that entropy. The Israeli nuclear arsenal has grown steadily larger and far more lethal while the Israel lobby has grown steadily larger and far more influential.
Precluding Peace at Any Price
Entropy often emerges as part of a broader game theory strategy. After the failed Camp David agreements in 2000, President Bill Clinton realized the terms that he and Israel offered the Palestinians were unacceptable. In December, he proposed “parameters” that both sides accepted with reservations.
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators then met in Taba, Egypt in January 2001 to resolve their differences. As progress was being made, Tel Aviv canceled the negotiations, ending official progress. Unofficial discussions led to the Geneva Accord in 2003 that Israel rejected.
Were these developments part of an entropy strategy that remains ongoing?
As progress became detectible on the Road Map to Peace [proposed by the Quartet comprised of the U.S., the European Union, Russia and the U.N.], the coalition government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert collapsed citing a long-brewing scandal that brought his resignation in July 2008.
After negotiations were put on hold for eight months, the right-wing coalition government of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promptly disavowed even the tentative progress made by the Olmert government. That stance not only ensured more delay, that entropy ensured an opportunity to stage more provocations and catalyst more conflict.
Should the Netanyahu government detect that progress toward peace is possible, watch for the collapse of yet another Israeli coalition. One possible scenario: the Shas Party will withdraw citing its unhappiness that the status of Jerusalem is raised as part of a final agreement.
Of course everyone knows that Jerusalem must be at the center of any final status agreement. The Shas Pary stance suggests a pending entropy maneuver. Note also that the possibility of this next game theory tactic makes transparent a critical element in game theory math.
The math enables those who are few in numbers to operate with a force-multiplier that remains opaque to analysts unfamiliar with how Zionist warfare is waged “by way of deception.” That’s the motto of the Israeli Mossad, Israel’s intelligence and foreign operations directorate.
To succeed, deception must be hidden in plain sight. In this case, the central deceit is Israel’s “special relationship” with the U.S. For this duplicity to work, the U.S.-Israeli relationship must be sustained.
Over the past two weeks, pressure applied by the Israel lobby resulted in letters to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from four-fifths of the U.S. Congress. Those letters urged that the Obama administration restate an “unbreakable bond” between the U.S. and Israel.
That entangled relationship enables the game theory math that becomes the force-multiplier. By that bond, the U.S. agrees to maintain an Israeli government with which to negotiate. If another Israeli government collapses, progress toward peace stalls—to the detriment of our interests. Thus it becomes in our interest to keep the coalition intact—regardless of its policies.
That bond provides Israel with strategic leverage because even the potential for entropy is a force-multiplier in the hands of savvy game theory strategists. The relationship itself provides Tel Aviv with the indirect power it deploys to shape U.S. foreign policy.
When framed in game theory terms, who controls our policy in the region? At present, does the U.S. commitment to sustain this relationship (an unbreakable bond) enable the Shas Party to shape our options?
Who wields the real influence in this relationship? Who has the leverage—a U.S. president residing in Washington or Zionist extremists and religious fundamentalists living in Israel?
In practical effect, is U.S. foreign policy dominated by the goals of the most right-wing element of the most right-wing coalition in the most consistently right-wing government that the world community has endured since the defeat of WWII fascism?
Guilt By Association
By proclaiming an “unbreakable bond’ with this extremist enclave, American legislators enabled the very forces that undermine our security and put endangered our troops in the region.
Note that the Israel lobby did not ask that the Knesset pledge its allegiance to us. In this special relationship, loyalty flows in only one direction. If Israelis were loyal to us, why would their lobby insist on a loyalty oath from us?
U.S. diplomats have long defended Israel’s indefensible and lawless behavior. And we have done so in the world’s most high profile legal forum: the United Nations. By associating America’s goodwill with Zionism’s geopolitical goals, we enabled others to portray us as a fascist state.
By our own choice, we branded and discredited ourselves. There lies the genius in game theory.
Game theory warfare succeeds in plain sight. To betray, one must first befriend. To defraud, one must create a relationship based on trust. The relationship itself induced us to freely embrace the very forces that now jeopardize our freedom—from the inside out.
That’s why such deceit can only proceed in plain sight. And can only survive through a committed relationship—an “unbreakable bond” that the target freely chooses.
The challenge for Israel has suddenly turned deadly serious. Its trans-generational duplicity has become transparent not only to U.S. officials but also to a long-deceived American public. The Zionist state teeters on the brink of losing not only U.S. support but also its legitimacy as a state.
The U.S. Military vs. Zionism
Here’s the Big Question: what happens when the U.S. military grasps how their senior officers were deceived to wage war in Iraq? Obliged by a sworn oath to defend the nation from all enemies—both foreign and domestic—what conduct accompanies that oath of office?
From Tel Aviv’s perspective, what happens to Israel’s credibility as the “Jewish state” as this duplicity becomes transparent to the broader Jewish community? What happens when Jews grasp that they too were deceived? What conduct accompanies that realization?
Like many naïve Americans, naive Jews believed their interests were aligned with Israel. Yet since well before its founding Zionists consistently advanced what the Joint Chiefs in 1948 portrayed as “fanatical concepts.” Those concepts include efforts—still ongoing—to exert what the Pentagon then described as “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.”
That assessment remains accurate. Thus the need for a U.S.-Israeli “bond” founded on deception. With applied game theory duplicity, our military could be induced to wage Zionist wars.
What happens when U.S. military leaders realize that the people in their command were put in harm’s way pursue the fanatical concepts of religious extremists?
Who then does their oath of office require them to obey in the chain of command?
Who then becomes the enemy?
Zionist fanatics duped commander-in-chief Harry Truman into extending to them the nation state status that Israeli operatives have since deployed to catalyze serial conflicts in plain sight. That duplicity includes waging war on the very nation that enabled this deceit.
The perception of nation state legitimacy was critical to the game theory-enabled warfare that can now be drawn to a close.
For those long deceived by this sophisticated treachery, it is difficult to imagine that such a devious mindset can survive in the Age of Transparency. In truth, it cannot.
Ensuring the earliest possible end to this treachery is the goal of these analyses: to sound the death knell for a trans-generational enterprise that never merited recognized as a state.
Israel has no place in a community of nations committed to the rule of law. Only an enemy within would suggest an “unbreakable bond” that undermines our national security. Though this form of treason remains ongoing, the forces are now coalescing to expose it and drive it out.
As both an enabler and a target of game theory warfare, Americans must grasp the mindset of these complicit. We must also acknowledge that this treachery is not traceable to a people; this is the work of an aberrant few within a broader community. Note the descriptors in bold:
psychopathy n. A mental disorder roughly equivalent to antisocial personality disorder, but with emphasis on affective and interpersonal traits such as superficial charm, pathological lying, egocentricity, lack of remorse, and callousness that have traditionally been regarded by clinicians as characteristic of psychopaths, rather than social deviance traits such as need for stimulation, parasitic lifestyle, poor behavioral controls, impulsivity, and irresponsibility that are prototypical of antisocial personality disorder. Whether psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder share a common referent is an open question.
The Lethal Combination
The facts and analyses required to restore national security are available. If our analysts are on top of their game (in game theory terms), they are monitoring how events are staged in real-time to advance a non-transparent agenda by deploying both entropy and outrage.
Tel Aviv just leaked intelligence suggesting that Syria transferred Scud missiles to Iran-backed Hezbollah. Intelligence agencies, including ours, doubt the reliability of Israeli intelligence.
Nevertheless, this story injected into the geopolitical mind space a combination of both outrage (“How dare they?”) and entropy as Israel continues its efforts to expand this latest conflict from Iraq to Iran as the next in a series of “plausible” Evil Doers.
Consistent with an attempt to gain traction for this latest Evil Doer narrative, Haaretz published an article on April 30th with the title, “Syria’s provocations may plunge Middle East into war.”
Note the “associative” component that indicts Iran due to its support of Hezbollah. The story also challenges Iran’s credibility as a partner for peace, at least among those who ascribe credibility to Israeli intelligence. Such reports often appear in the Israeli press and spread from there into mainstream media.
Rare are reports that challenge the prevailing narrative. Despite their relevance, almost no media outlet reported the off-the-cuff comment of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, in a February 14th forum in Doha, Qatar, conceded “[Iran] doesn’t directly threaten the United States.”
Yet this game theory fact remains: if Tel Aviv can catalyze a conflict in Iran, the resulting entropy will help obscure the facts confirming who catalyzed the conflict in Iraq.
Note throughout the motivation for the Israel lobby to pressure Congress for a statement avowing an “unbreakable bond” while also ptomoying a conflict with Iran (or Pakistan) as the next Evil Doer.
Note too the April 29th statement of Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin. In the course of urging a dramatic shift in focus for Israel-Palestine peace talks, Rivlin conceded that he saw no point in Israel signing a peace agreement. Instead he proposed making Israeli citizens of the Palestinians rather than dividing Israel and the West Bank as part of a two-state solution to peace.
Is this a sincere step in the direction of a one-state solution? With each passing day, more analysts realize that a single state is the only solution consistent with sustainable peace and a genuine democracy.
Or is this yet another entropy strategy to delay yet again resolution of the Israeli occupation while game theorists stage yet another provocation to evoke more outrage?
The manipulations continue in plain sight. In March, the Netanyahu government announced plans to build 1,600 housing units in an ultra-orthodox neighborhood of East Jerusalem. Several analysts argue that peace talks have actually regressed over the past eight years.
Should the next round of negotiations gain traction, look for them to be disrupted either by violence or by another decision by Israel to build more housing on contested land.
With the tools for seeing how game theory works, those targeted by this duplicity can see for themselves who and why. With transparency will come accountability. With accountability will come the peace and stability that Zionist war planners must preclude—at any price.
Sustainable peace will come only when the nuclear arsenal now in the hands of religious fanatics is secured and when those responsible for this deceit are held accountable. Until then, both peace and the Palestinians will continue to be held hostage by those chronicled in this account.
Winning wars in the Information Age largely depends on winning the battle for public opinion. Thus the opinion-shaping role of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) when it attacked a high profile California professor for his criticism of Israeli policy in Palestine.
That ADL intimidation campaign successfully chilled debate on campuses nationwide during several time-critical months while a new president, promising the hope of change, reassessed U.S.-Israeli relations. His only change—endorsing more Israeli settlements on Palestinian land—quashed any hope of peace.
This ADL silencing strategy offers a microcosm of how the U.S. was induced to war in Iraq based on false intelligence. From the provocation of September 11, 2001 until the invasion of March 2003, war-planners ignored, dismissed or sought to silence anyone critical of the spurious premises offered for war.
Only later did we discover that the intelligence was fixed around a preset agenda. Even now, Americans are unaware that the U.S.-led invasion had long been an Israeli goal.
In similar fashion, an ADL campaign silenced on-campus criticism of Israel’s December 2008 assault on Gaza. At the University of California Santa Barbara, ADL-initiated charges were lodged against sociology Professor William Robinson. The disciplinary action dragged on until June 24th when 100 professors and 20 department heads demanded an end to all proceedings.
By then the damage was done—to the reputation of Professor Robinson, to academic freedom at the University of California and to national security as this campaign silenced academics countrywide. While Robinson’s reputation can be restored, the damage to national security is irreparable.
The ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles coordinated the assault on Robinson after he shared with students from his globalization website a photo essay critical of Israel. The essay had circulated for weeks on the Internet.
Aaron Ettenberg, a member of the Faculty Senate Charges Committee, collaborated with Santa Barbara Rabbi Arthur Gross-Schaefer who reviled Robinson in the local community and urged—along with the ADL—that he be disciplined by the university for his “anti-Semitic” behavior.
Chancellor Henry Yang was subjected to threats to withhold funding featuring a campaign led by ADL National Director Abe Foxman and Rabbi Marvin Heir from the Wiesenthal Center.
Professor Ettenberg had served the previous two years as president of the local chapter of B’nai B’rith, an ADL affiliate. Rabbi Gross-Schaefer was director of the local chapter of Hillel, an on-campus ADL affiliate.
Mark Yudof, president of the University of California, opted not to intervene even as this silencing campaign attracted international attention. Yudof’s wife, Judith, is the immediate past international president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism representing 760 synagogues. She is also a director of Hillel.
As with the dominance of Jewish Zionists among neoconservative war-planners, the pro-Israeli bias was all-pervasive. Richard Blum chairs the statewide Board of Regents for the University of California. His wife, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. What was their reaction as this professor was silenced? Silence.
Coincidence or Faith-Based Coordination?
Would a professor and a local rabbi have risked their careers and their reputations absent their confidence that—based on the shared bias of university administrators and government officials—they could intimidate with impunity? Absent such implied support, would this silencing operation have dragged on for so long?
Absent their silence—with its tacit approval—what might have been the impact of campus criticism when Israel’s assault on the captive population of Gaza left 1300 dead, one-third reportedly women and children? Those complicit in this silencing campaign knew the impact on public opinion of student protests against the Vietnam War—particularly on California campuses.
Those concerned about anti-Semitism must explain how this broadly coordinated intimidation campaign was allowed to succeed. In the same way that public opinion was manipulated prior to an invasion that launched the Global War on Terrorism, this campaign sought to deny students the facts required to understand Israel’s role in provoking that terror.
Absent access to facts, how can the U.S. preserve a system of self-governance founded on the premise of informed consent? Without facts, how can national security be protected from those who “fix” intelligence in order to deploy the U.S. military for the interests of a foreign nation?
Unless those complicit are held accountable, how will American youth learn the essential role of free and open debate on topics of direct relevance to their lives?
In a representative system of government, the greatest threat to liberty is manipulation of the facts required for informed citizen participation. Anyone who cherishes freedom should be alarmed at the ongoing success of such manipulation and outraged that its common source traces to a purported ally.
Psychological warfare targets knowledge as a means to manipulate thought, opinion and emotion (the “hearts and minds”) and thereby influence behavior. At the center of such disinformation is the displacement of facts with false beliefs meant to prod decision-making toward a preset goal.
Thus the false reports of Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories and so forth. Thus the high profile assault on a high-profile center of learning to silence a professor who threatened to replace manipulated beliefs with confirmed facts.
Where U.S. policies toward Israel are at stake, facts are routinely suppressed to shape debate. Such strategic deceit systematically undermines U.S. national security.
Treason in Plain Sight
Intimidation campaigns have long been a key tool for organized crime and for those whose undisclosed agenda can succeed only when shielded from public scrutiny. Those complicit in such “psy-ops” know their agenda could not prevail in an open debate. They also know that if their treachery is detected they face charges of treason, a capital crime.
That’s why this form of treason instead targets knowledge to corrupt the facts required for informed choice. That focus denies those targeted a meaningful choice while leaving intact the appearance of open debate. Meanwhile the perpetrators seek refuge behind the very freedoms they undermine—freedom of speech, press, assembly and religion.
In this case, pro-Israeli operatives silenced on-campus criticism of Israel while Israel committed dozens of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Evidence of those crimes was depicted in the Internet-posted photo essay that the ADL attacked as “anti-Semitic.”
What was the strategic result? That assault on Gaza marked yet another violent provocation guaranteed to catalyze a violent reaction (aka “terrorism”), adding plausibility to the narrative of “militant Islam.” The result made the U.S. appear guilty by its association with this criminality.
We then compounded our complicity by covering up the facts when the Congress, dominated by the Israel lobby, overwhelmingly approved a resolution portraying as “irredeemably biased” a chronicle of those war crimes in “The Goldstone Report,” a comprehensive account by an eminent Jewish jurist. [See How the Israel Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy.]
The U.S. was doubly damaged. We not only discredited ourselves, we also endangered our national security by condoning criminality destined to provoke more violence directed at our troops.
When such psy-ops campaigns are detected, defenders of democracy must fight back by making the perpetrators transparent and their common motivation apparent. This is how Israel wages war on the U.S. from inside the U.S.—by deceiving us to wage its wars and by provoking others to hate us due to our alliance with religious extremists and their apartheid policies.
Duplicity has long been a weapon deployed to “wage war by way of deception.” That’s the operative motto of the Mossad, the intelligence and foreign operations branch of the Jewish nationalists who have dominated Israeli politics since a Christian-Zionist president erred in 1948 by recognizing as a legitimate “state” this enclave of Jewish extremists and ultra-nationalists.
Israel specializes in what the Pentagon calls unconventional warfare. Such warfare is only “unconventional” for the targeted population (us). For militant Zionists, this is how war is waged. When your numbers are few and your ambitions vast, deceit becomes an essential force-multiplier.
In the Information Age, why would anyone expect war to be waged in any way other than by deception? Where else but in plain sight could such warfare be waged?
For freedom to prevail against such psy-ops requires a shift in strategic focus. A robust defense would make this manipulation transparent in real time before deception can work its intended impact on public opinion.
The dominance of pro-Israelis in mainstream media complicates that task. Media complicity was essential to succeed in the deceit that took the U.S. to war and that now seeks to obscure Israeli war crimes.
A Special Relationship with Fanatics
The Pentagon warned six decades ago that Jewish extremists sought military and economic dominance over the entire Middle East. As the Joint Chiefs of Staff cautioned Harry Truman:
“All stages of this program are equally sacred to the fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders. The program is openly admitted by some leaders, and has been privately admitted to United States officials by responsible leaders of the presently dominant Jewish group—The Jewish Agency.”
Other than religious fanatics, who would deny Americans—including college students—the facts required to make informed choices on an issue as critical as taking the U.S. to war in the Middle East? Other than pro-Israeli publishers and broadcast media owners, who would have the motivation to report as “facts” the phony intelligence that was fixed around Israeli goals?
If not Israel and its Zionist advocates—both Christians and Jews—who would have the means, motive, opportunity and, importantly, the stable nation state intelligence required to corrupt the intelligence that took the U.S. to war? Or to silence academic critics just when those who induced the invasion of Iraq intensified their efforts to expand this war to Iran and now Pakistan?
If the behavior described is not treason, what is? If this is treason, why have those complicit not been charged? Is Professor Ettenberg still employed by the university? If so, why? Have rabbis Gross-Schaefer and Heir been dismissed from their positions of influence? If not, why not?
Why hasn’t the ADL’s Abe Foxman been indicted? Did he confer with the Yudoffs during this silencing campaign? Has a federal grand jury been impaneled to consider charges of treason? Foxman was invited to the White House for the October 28th signing of the ADL’s “model hate crimes” bill. Will that federal legislation now be deployed to lawfully intimidate critics?
Have mainstream publishers and media owners been investigated for their complicity in this national scale fraud on public opinion? If not, why not? Is the Federal Communications Commission moving to revoke the broadcast licenses of those who used the public airwaves to deceive the public? If not, why not?
Are news reports correct that an investment firm run by Richard Blum made more than $100 million on the rising value of its stock in a top defense contractor? Did his firm also invest in media outlets that sold us this war?
In an irony of epic proportions, ADL’s amendment to federal hate crimes law was tacked onto an appropriations bill for the Department of Defense. Will the ADL now seek to portray as “anti-Semitic” those who document for a long-deceived military the common source of the psy-ops that took U.S. forces to war in the Middle East?
Will those who repeat the Joint Chiefs’ warning about religious fanatics be targeted for federal prosecution? Will allegations of hate be deployed to silence debate? Is treason now lawful?
In October 2007, Defense Secretary Robert Gates coined a generic term to describe the most challenging combatants when waging unconventional warfare. He called them simply “the people in between.” Those people, a dominant force in mainstream American media, comprise a fifth column in support of those skilled at waging war by way of deception.
The term ‘fifth column’ originated in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s to depict forces that clandestinely undermine a populace—from within—to aid an external enemy. The term was later cited as a rationale for interning citizens during WWII, including Germans in the U.K and Japanese in the U.S. Israelis routinely refer to Arab-Israelis as a fifth column residing within what Tel Aviv describes as the Jewish state.
Though misapplied in practice, the term remains an apt depiction of how internal influence can be wielded by a hostile force. In the Information Age, this fifth column focuses on those ‘in between’ domains where modest numbers can wield outsized influence. Television news is optimal as modern-day media operates “in between” a populace and the facts they require for a system of governance reliant on informed consent.
The dominant influence of pro-Israelis in mainstream media is not the focus of this article. Here the focus is Wolf Blitzer at Cable News Network who typifies how “the people in between” manipulate public opinion in plain sight and, to date, with legal impunity.
While working as a Washington correspondent for Jerusalem Post (1973-1990), Blitzer served as an editor of Near East Report, a publication founded by Isaiah Kenen, a registered foreign agent of Israel, who also founded the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC coordinates a network of transnational political operatives known loosely as “the Israel lobby.” Neither AIPAC nor Blitzer has yet registered as a foreign agent in the U.S.
The son of Polish Ashkenazi émigrés, Blitzer first emerged on the media scene in 1989 with the publication of Territory of Lies, an account of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard that The New York Times obligingly included in its list of “Notable Books of the Year.” Reviewer Robert Friedman described Blitzer’s sympathetic treatment of Pollard’s treason (the theft of more than one million classified documents) “a slick piece of damage control that would make his former employers at AIPAC (not to mention Israel’s Defense Ministry) proud.”
As a writer for Hebrew language newspapers in the 1970s, Blitzer wrote under the name Ze’ev Barak—Hebrew for “wolf lightning.” The Blitzer media presence first emerged with his CNN coverage of the Gulf War in 1991 and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Initially a military reporter for CNN, he became a fixture on television news as CNN’s Clinton-era White House correspondent until 1999 when he became a high profile CNN anchor.
Since August 2005, CNN (marketed as “the most trusted name in news”) has featured the former AIPAC editor broadcasting from a White House-associative studio set branded as “The Situation Room.” CNN colleague John King deploys a similar credibility enhancing set by broadcasting from “The State of the Union.”
Abuse of the Public Trust
On one key media principle U.S. law is clear: the airwaves belong to the public. The nation’s Founders knew that the preservation of self-governance depends on an informed populace. That’s why modern-day lawmakers enacted legislation to ensure that media outlets are not concentrated in a few hands, enabling a fifth column to shape public opinion around a predetermined agenda.
Little could America’s first lawmakers have known that an ideologically aligned few would concentrate broadcast media in the hands of those who share an undisclosed bias. When Likud Prime Minister Ariel Sharon fell ill in Israel, Blitzer’s broadcast originated from Jerusalem. Likewise when Israel invaded Lebanon in July 2006. Blitzer again relocated to Israel to focus viewer attention on the situation there.
As Tel Aviv sought to expand the war to Iran, several anti-Zionist rabbis appeared in Tehran alongside Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who echoed their wish that Zionism be “erased from the pages of history” (widely reported as a wish to “wipe Israel off the map”). Rather than interview these dissident rabbis, Blitzer featured David Duke, a former head of the Ku Klux Klan. Rather than associate the Iranian president with anti-Zionism, Blitzer used the Situation Room to associate him with racism and anti-Semitism.
Between the U.S populace and the facts they require for informed consent lies an “in between” domain. In that realm is found a network of like-minded fifth column operatives whose pro-Israeli bias works unseen—yet in plain sight—to shape public opinion around a predetermined agenda. That agenda-shaping “news” routinely features commentators from think tanks who share the same bias.
What is the reach of this media-induced corruption of informed consent? According to CNN’s August 2009 advertising in The New York Times, this cable network delivers trusted news to 70.6 million television viewers in the U.S. What’s been the cost in blood and treasure of this undisclosed bias—not just to the U.S. but also worldwide?
The most trusted name in news featured National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice in September 2002 when she issued a fact-free warning about Iraqi WMD: “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” From the Pentagon’s perspective, “the people in between” are waging unconventional warfare. From the perspective of this enemy within, the only unconventional aspect of their deception is the fact that a long-deceived public is now learning about it—many of them for the first time.
The displacement of facts with what a populace can be induced to believe is the very threat to personal freedom that the Founders sought to escape. The only modern aspect of this ancient form of warfare is the reach of the media technologies with which such deception can now operate—as with CNN—on a global scale.
In unconventional warfare, the battlefield is the shared field of consciousness. Where does a “consensus” reside? That’s where battles are now waged for public opinion. Those who targeted University of California, Santa Barbara Professor William Robinson know that victory flows to those most adept at influencing the consensus mindset. Few know that better than the Anti-Defamation League.
For seasoned combatants, the psyops challenge lies in how best to displace facts with beliefs. The only modern component of this ancient craft is the means for taking such manipulation to global scale. The duplicity is the same regardless whether the operation creates a shared belief in Iraqi WMD, a shared consensus in the infallibility of unfettered financial markets or a shared opinion that Israel is a democracy and an ally. All false yet all widely believed to be true.
Robinson was smeared as an anti-Semite for sharing a photo essay with his students that was critical of Israeli policy. That essay first appeared in Adbusters, a magazine subtitled The Journal of the Mental Environment. That essay has since been posted on a website maintained by UCSB students in defense of academic freedom: http://sb4af.wordpress.com/robinson-case/
Kalle Lasn, founding editor of Adbusters, is a graphic artist who eventually awoke to the harm he was doing as an advertising executive. An Estonian, he saw firsthand how the Soviets exerted virtual control by manipulating the mental environment. In March 2004, Lasn published an article in Adbusters pointing out that, whereas less than two percent of Americans are Jewish, 26 of the top 50 neoconservatives advocating war in Iraq are Jewish (52%).
He titled the article: “Why Won’t Anyone Say They’re Jewish?” By ADL standards, that meant he was an “anti-Semite”—just for asking the question. What’s since been confirmed is that the bulk of those who fixed the intelligence around that predetermined goal were either Jewish or assets developed by operatives who were Jewish.
Displacement is how warfare is waged in the Information Age: displacing facts with beliefs. Why would anyone expect otherwise? Jewish critics of Israeli policy are “self-hating.” Non-Jewish critics are anti-Semites, Jew haters and/or Holocaust deniers. Although those charges are fast losing their potency from overuse, their toxicity still retains enough force to silence critics—as shown by the global traction gained by this thought control operation on a University of California campus.
Sir Gerald Kaufman, British founder of Independent Jewish Voices, uses his position as a Member of Parliament to criticize Israeli policy. Members of his family perished at the hands of the Nazis and in the Holocaust. As one of the U.K.’s harshest critics of Israeli policies, he routinely compares the Jewish state’s treatment of Palestinians to Nazi Germany’s treatment of Jews—the same analogy for which Robinson (also Jewish) was smeared as an anti-Semite.
Kaufman’s heartfelt speech on Israel’s incursion into Gaza, given on the floor of the House of Commons, is a must-see for those concerned that criticism of Israeli policy remains absent on the floor of the U.S. Congress. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8 [Readers can draw their own conclusions as to who would be motivated to corrupt this YouTube version of his remarks.]
The psyops specialists who coordinated this on-campus silencing campaign know where modern wars are waged: in the shared mindset. The war fought to invade Iraq was waged in the mental environment long before U.S. troops invaded Iraq. Now the U.S. appears guilty by its association with an extremist enclave infamous worldwide for its prowess at waging war by way of deception—and for its aptitude at deceiving the U.S. to fight those wars.
The U.S. invaded Iraq only after facts were displaced by manipulated beliefs. The litany of manufactured beliefs is long and varied: Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague, Iraqi acquisition of yellowcake uranium from Niger and the list goes on. None were factual; all were deployed to deceive. And to advance an Israeli agenda.
Remember the campaign to discredit Joe Wilson overseen by (Jewish) White House operative Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney’s Chief of Staff? A former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Wilson was targeted by Libby for exposing the phony intelligence on uranium from Niger. Campaigns to deceive and discredit have long been key weapons in the Israeli arsenal of deceit.
Remember how Colin Powell was dispatched by pro-Israeli war-planners to the U.N. Security Council just weeks before the March 2003 invasion? Why Powell? To associate his hard-earned credibility with what we now know was false intelligence about Iraq’s mobile biological weapons laboratories. At every turn we find the displacement of facts with beliefs to manipulate decision-makers. That operation successfully discredited not only Powell and the U.S. but also the U.N., an organization that Tel Aviv fears may yet hold Israel accountable for its conduct under international law.
Intelligence on which the U.S. relied was fixed by pro-Israelis in pursuit of a predetermined agenda: the expansionist goals for Greater Israel. Phony intelligence persuaded Washington decision-makers to dispatch the U.S. military to wage a preemptive war not for American interests but for Tel Aviv. When waging unconventional warfare, by the time you see troops on the ground, those complicit are often pre-staging the next venue—as now with the Israeli push to attack Iran.
The ADL-coordinated intimidation campaign launched on the UCSB campus reflects the face of fascism in the Information Age. To respond effectively, the Senate Faculty must provide the tools that enable those targeted to grasp how facts are displaced with induced beliefs—in plain sight and, to date, with legal impunity. No one likes to be deceived. Once “the mark” grasps how they were manipulated, they will see for themselves who is complicit and why. That’s when long overdue accountability can begin.
To focus only on the means (such as the attack on Robinson) leaves the end obscure. And leaves the mark—including UC students—without the tools required to defend against such duplicity. For educators, that shortcoming would transform this potential triumph into an academic tragedy.
In unconventional warfare, beliefs are deployed as weapons by those waging war by way of deception. Does anyone recall Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda? Iraq’s biological weapons laboratories? The Iraqi meetings in Prague with Al Qaeda? Iraq’s purchases of yellowcake uranium from Niger?
All were alleged true but later proven false or, worse, fabricated. Yet all were widely believed. In combination, those beliefs induced a consensus to wage war in Iraq in response to a mass murder on U.S. soil.
The battlefield has shifted. Ground warfare is secondary. Likewise for airstrikes, naval support and covert operations. Physical operations are all downstream of information operations. False beliefs come first. Psyops precede missiles, and bombs. Hardware ranks a distant third. Foremost are the consensus shapers who manipulate perceptions until a critical mass of phony intelligence is reached. Then comes war.
People are preeminent. Wars are won by those skilled at creating consensus opinions. Where is modern-day warfare waged? Not on the ground; nor in the air or on the seas. The shared mindset is this combatant’s theater of operations. Their battlefield is the shared field of consciousness. Deceit is not new to warfare. What’s new is the technology that enables psyops on a global scale.
The military remains subordinate to politics. But politics are subordinate to those skilled at manipulating consensus beliefs. Decision-making is no better than the information on which decisions depend. Likewise for decision-makers. That’s why U.S. lawmakers have long been targeted by the Israel lobby. [See: “How the Israel Lobby Took Control of the Congress”]
With law-making dependent on information, these mindset manipulators can operate atop the chain of command. In a system of law reliant on informed choice, self-governance can readily be replaced in plain sight by manipulated beliefs and consensus opinions. Thus the motivation for media dominance by Zionists in the U.S., Canada, Germany and elsewhere.
When waged across four key areas, such “Information Operations” can displace democratic lawmaking with a predetermined agenda. Here’s a quick look at each area: geopolitical, strategic, operational and tactical..
Duplicity in Plain Sight
The geopolitical realm is where the “framing” of future conflicts first emerges. The Clash of Civilizations first appeared in 1993 as an article in Foreign Affairs. Three years later, when this thematic framing emerged as a book, more than 100 NGOs were prepared to promote its conflict-of-opposites theme as a sequel to the Cold War—and a prequel to a “global war on terrorism.” That consensus belief emerged just as A Clean Break appeared with its proposal to “secure the realm” (Israel) by removing Saddam Hussein.
Strategically, to evoke a war requires a plausible Evil Doer and a credible provocation. The global branding of the Taliban emerged in the “field” in March 2001 with destruction of the ancient Buddhas at Bamiyan. Widely portrayed as a “cultural Holocaust,” that high-profile act put Afghanistan’s previously obscure Taliban on everyone’s list as certifiably evil. The missing piece: the mass murder of September 11, 2001.
Strongly provoked emotions facilitate the displacement of facts with what “the mark” can be induced to believe—particularly in the presence of Evil Doer pre-staging. The combination of (a) evocation (religious extremism), (b) provocation (911) and (c) association (the Axis of Evil) enhanced the capacity to deceive—fueled by false reports of Iraqi WMD and even ties between the secular Saddam and the fundamentalists of Al Qaeda (they detested each other).
When waging war on the public’s shared mindset, the power of association is one of the most effective weapons. Thus the potent imagery of the peaceful Buddhas at Bamiyan destroyed by violent extremists. Thus too the associative impact of Colin Powell’s appearance at the U.N. Security Council when his credibility was deployed—like a weapon—to spread lies about Iraq’s biological weapons. Not only was Powell “the mark” – so were the U.N. and the U.S.
Operationally, by the time the U.S. was induced to invade Iraq, 100-plus Israeli Mossad agents had been operating in Mosul for more than a decade. Soon after the invasion, several moderate clerics were murdered, enhancing the capacity to provoke a conflict-of-opposites between extremist Shias and more moderate Sunnis, a key to evoking the destabilizing insurgency.
As Information Operations proceed at the geopolitical, strategic and operational level, tactical deceit and misdirection provide key support. A recent provocation—the invasion of Gaza—was scheduled by Tel Aviv between Christmas and the inauguration of a U.S. President who promised change. That timing ensured minimal capacity to criticize.
As critics of Israeli policy emerged in universities, the Anti-Defamation League and its international network mounted an intimidation campaign on a high-profile campus that silenced academics worldwide. [See: “Treason in Plain Sight?”]
To succeed, Information Operations require both deceit and denial of access to the facts required for informed consent. How else can anyone explain the perception that the Zionist state is a democracy—and even an ally?
Democracy assumes that all of us collectively are smarter than any of us individually. Thus the need for an unbiased media to provide the facts with which we can reason together. Thus, in turn, the need for pro-Israeli dominance of mainstream media by those skilled at waging war by way of deception. Thus what we now see portrayed in that domain: a world turned inside out where the aggressor is portrayed as victim and the predator as prey.
With consensus beliefs the upstream target, democracy becomes the downstream casualty. To protect the informed consent essential to liberty requires that those waging war on our shared mindset be made transparent. This method of warfare is ancient; only the means are modern.
The common source of this duplicity remains unknown to the public. There lies the strategic role for online media unadorned by conspiracy theories that obscure the clarity required to wage this battle with confidence.
Unless President Barack Obama resolves to expunge “special” from the U.S.-Israeli “special relationship,” this entangled alliance will continue to ensure that the U.S. is portrayed as guilty by its association with Tel Aviv’s thuggish behavior in Palestine and elsewhere. And by the U.S. insistence that Israel not be held accountable under international law.
On July 3rd, Israeli ambassador Michael Oren claimed “Iran nuke could wipe Israel off the map in seconds.” An accurate translation reveals that what the president of Iran proposes is that Zionism be “erased from the pages of history.” But why quibble over words and their intent when Israel’s intent is to create a consensus that ensures war with Iran?
Two days after Oren’s saber-rattling speech, Vice-President Joe Biden was asked in a televised interview whether the Obama Administration would restrain Israeli military action against Iran. President Obama was then out of the country. A self-proclaimed Zionist, Biden responded, “Israel can determine for itself—it’s a sovereign nation—what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAZmO80dLfE
Unfamiliar with the refrain, “loose lips sink ships,” Biden’s cavalier comment evoked memories of Vice President Dick Cheney who routinely waited until his boss was out of town to make bellicose remarks that moved the U.S. steadily closer to war in Iraq.
Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, scrambled to offset the impression left by Biden’s comment. Astute strategists know it is the small impressions that, step-by-step, form the consensus beliefs that shape policy-making. It was the gradual drip, drip, drip of such impressions that created the (false) consensus belief that Iraq had WMD, ties to Al Qaeda and mobile biological weapons laboratories.
Pro-Israeli pundits quickly claimed that, with Biden’s comment, Washington had given Tel Aviv the green light to attack Iran. Mullen grabbed media attention to reconfirm the obvious: an attack on Iran could have “grave and unpredictable consequences.”
Arrogant, Aggressive & Above the Law
What has Israel done to quell these global jitters? Tel Aviv ordered a long-range Air Force exercise covering the same distance as from Israel to Iran. It dispatched through the Suez Canal a Dolphin class submarine, three of which are widely believed capable of launching a nuclear missile attack. And it sent a “message” to Iran by sailing two Saar class missile ships through the canal into the Red Sea, putting them within striking distance of Tehran.
Meanwhile, Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News played its usual supporting role by announcing Israeli Navy Prepares for Potential Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities. To date, Barack Obama has shown little inclination to say no to Tel Aviv and show he means it. Instead, his administration has staffed up with advisers who are disproportionately pro-Israeli—more so even than the Bush and Clinton presidencies.
When in February he failed to support the nomination of Ambassador Charles Freeman as Director of the National Intelligence Council, Obama served global notice of just how much influence Israel wields over U.S. foreign policy. Opposition to Freeman was led by Steven Rosen, a former executive of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Though you would never know it from reports in mainstream media, Rosen had been indicted under the Espionage Act for transferring to the Israeli embassy classified Pentagon intelligence on Iran.
Adding insult to the Freeman injury, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder approved the withdrawal of charges against Rosen and co-conspirator Keith Weissman, another AIPAC executive. After receiving a 12-year sentence for conceding his complicity, Pentagon Iran analyst Lawrence Franklin saw his sentence reduced to time served under house arrest and was ordered to perform 100 hours of community service. So much for accountability.
Just as he said not a word on Gaza, Obama remained silent on Freeman. Left to twist in the wind by the commander in chief, Freeman withdrew his nomination. When he vowed not to remain silent in his critique of the Israel lobby, Washington Post editors denied there was such a lobby, dismissed his critique as a “conspiracy theory” and attacked his comments as a “crackpot tirade.”
Though AIPAC avowed it took no stand on the appointment, reports confirm it leaned on key senators and later boasted that Obama was a “pushover.” In a fiery rejoinder to his critics, Freeman noted, “This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.”
Palestinians are correct to wonder how Americans could be so unresponsive to their abuse at the hands of a U.S. ally. What those in the Middle East fail to grasp is that Americans do not know. How could they? Mainstream media is dominated by pro-Israelis and the Israeli lobby politically dominates U.S. foreign policy in the region. http://criminalstate.com/blog/?p=99
Freeman was correct in the mid-1990s when he described the lobby’s “virtual hammerlock on American foreign policy.” The only difference now is that Israeli influence has grown far more systemic. An admirer of Israel, Freeman cautions: “Right now it is doing itself in and taking us with it.” By seeking to induce the U.S. to wage war in Iran, Tel Aviv confirms its agenda has little to do with U.S. interests and everything to do with its expansionist goals for the region.
Self-censorship in both politics and media precludes Americans from knowing the perils that accompany the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Nor do Americans know the horrors that this alliance has imposed on Palestinians. Activist Alison Weir dedicated an aptly named website to educating Americans: If Americans Knew. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/
Those who know are rarities. Those who know and criticize Israeli policy are routinely smeared with the toxic charge of anti-Semitism. Following Israel’s assault on Gaza, a high profile intimidation campaign against an academic critic at the University of California worked its intended silencing effect on academic critics nationwide. http://criminalstate.com/blog/?p=94
The behavior of this extremist nationalist enclave thrives in darkness, a condition that aptly describes U.S. media coverage of conditions in Palestine. Steadily more Americans are working to make Israel’s thuggish conduct transparent but the numbers are few and the challenges great.
The U.S. is branded abroad as a nation governed on the basis of informed consent. Yet pro-Israelis maintain a virtual lockdown on information and debate on Israel. The fight for Palestine must be waged and won in the U.S. where the appeasement of Israel relies on a lack of knowledge. If Americans knew, their support would be withdrawn. The U.S.-Israeli relationship will remain “special” only so long as Zionism can continue to operate in the shadows.
Winning wars in the Information Age largely depends on who wins the battle for public opinion. Thus it came as no surprise to see the Anti-Defamation League attack a professor on a high-profile California campus because he was critical of Israeli policy. The ADL’s well-timed intimidation campaign created a chilling effect nationwide that extended over five time-critical months while a new president—promising change—was reassessing U.S.-Israeli policy.
The success of this silencing tactic on a university campus offers a microcosm of how a similar shared bias induced the U.S. to wage war in Iraq based on false intelligence fixed around a pro-Israeli agenda. From late 2001 until March 2003, pro-Israeli war-planners dismissed—or sought to discredit—anyone critical of intelligence fixed around the pre-determined goal of invading Iraq, a strategy long sought by those favoring the expansionist goals of Greater Israel.
At the University of California Santa Barbara, proceedings against sociology Professor William Robinson dragged on until 100 professors and 20 department heads demanded they end. The intimidation campaign spanned the time from the Israeli attack on Gaza to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House. Not until June 24th did university administrators terminate all proceedings. By then, the damage was done—not just to the reputation of Robinson and the University of California but also to national security.
The ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center attacked Robinson after he posted on his website a photo essay critical of Israeli policy that had circulated for weeks on the Internet. In this case, Aaron Ettenberg, a member of the Faculty Senate Charges Committee, collaborated with Santa Barbara rabbi Arthur Gross-Schaefer who reviled Robinson locally and urged—along with the ADL—that he be disciplined for this “anti-Semitic” conduct.
With the exception of Chancellor Henry Yang, everyone involved was Jewish, including Robinson. At the urging of the rabbi, ADL President Abe Foxman and ADL’s nationwide network, Dr. Yang was intimidated with threats to withhold university funding. Ettenberg had served the previous two years as president of the local chapter of B’nai B’rith, an ADL affiliate. Gross-Schaefer was director of the local chapter of Hillel, another ADL affiliate.
Mark Yudof, president of the University of California, opted not to intervene. His wife, Judith, is the immediate past international president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism representing 760 synagogues. She is also a director of Hillel, the Jewish youth organization. As with the dominance of pro-Israelis among war-planners, the bias does not stop there. The chairman of the Board of Regents is Richard Blum whose wife, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, serves as the pro-Israeli, pro-war chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
The relevant question is this: Would a faculty member and a rabbi have risked their careers and their reputations absent their confidence that—based on the shared background and bias of senior university administrators—they could operate with impunity? Absent such support, would this ADL-directed operation have dragged on for five months?
Those genuinely concerned about anti-Semitism must explain how this intimidation campaign was allowed to succeed. In the same way that facts were denied a deceived American public in the lead-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, this silencing campaign sought to deny students the facts required to understand the role of Israel in world affairs. Absent access to facts, how can an informed populace preserve a system of self-governance? There is no greater threat to a free people.
Attempts to suppress debate where U.S. policies toward Israel are at stake cut to the core of how national security has been compromised by this entangled alliance. All Americans, including Jewish-Americans, must ensure that those complicit in such conduct are held accountable. And that those targeted are celebrated when, as here, they demonstrate the courage and fortitude to defend academic freedom under pressure from such multi-faceted, well-coordinated assaults.
Intimidation campaigns have long been critical to those whose operations can succeed only when protected from public scrutiny. Where, as here, pro-Israeli operatives seek to silence on-campus critics of a foreign nation, defenders of this nation’s security must fight back by making this behavior transparent and its motives apparent.
Duplicity remains a weapon routinely deployed by those instructed by Tel Aviv to “wage war by way of deception” (the motto of the Israeli Mossad). In the Information Age, why would anyone expect war to be waged in any other way? To prevail in such warfare, a shift in focus is required to make treason transparent before it works its intended impact on public opinion.
Other than an enemy within, who would seek to deny Americans—including college students—the facts needed to make informed choices, especially on an issue as critical as waging war in the Middle East? If not Israel and its advocates, who else would seek to silence critics of Israeli policy just as those who induced the U.S. to war in Iraq intensify their efforts to expand this conflict to Iran? If the behavior described is not treason, what is?