This Islamic preacher is “out there.” No doubt about it. So is Christian preacher John Hagee.
Hagee promises his flock a Rapture that will beam them up to Heaven. But not just yet. First God’s Chosen People must recover Jerusalem.
Remind me: isn’t the status of Jerusalem THE most contentious and volatile issue in the entire Middle East?
Hagee is much loved by the Likud Party wing nuts that have never shown any desire for peace with an indigenous population that has been ethnically cleansed, imprisoned and provoked with impunity for six-plus decades.
Isn’t Hagee’s preaching an incitement to violence? Yet members of his flock can claim a tax deduction to support his inspired preaching. We call this freedom of religion
If the recovery of Jerusalem for The Chosen requires an Armageddon, so be it. That too is part of God’s plan. Hagee should know. He claims a direct line to Yahweh. Just ask him.
Even a nuclear holocaust would fit God’s Plan. Why? An Apocalypse would assure the reappearance of a long-dead prophet.
This End Days prophecy is routinely foretold on the public airwaves by this tax-subsidized televangelist. For The Faithful, he offers an inspiration that has a twisted logic behind it.
When The Chosen recover their God-Given real estate, God will smite all those who refuse to join Hagee’s flock. Or some Christian affiliate thereof.
And, yes, that includes The Chosen. Convert or die. That’s the Hagee-inspired, tax-subsidized version of Christianity.
Such smiting does not qualify as a Holocaust. Why? Because those smitten are only The Chosen who refuse to choose a conversion to this version of a Loving God.
By then Hagee’s True Believers will be safely enfolded in the post-Rapture embrace of a God that prefers Christians Above All.
What about The Smitten? It was their Choice as The Chosen not to Choose. That’s their problem in this Biblical version of Blue State vs. Red State politics in a post-Apocalypse world.
Democracy-meets-theocracy supported by freedom-of-religion tax subsidies that inspire both The Saved and The Smitten.
Light Unto the Darkness
This blend of Star Trek and the Old Testament lacks any basis in either fact or faith. But Never Mind. That’s the burden that befalls those inspired by such a vision.
Just keep on keeping on, faithfully secure that you will be on the side of The Chosen in the post-Apocalyptic era. Provided, of course, that you choose wisely.
For that, consult Reverend Hagee. And keep those tax-deductible donations flowing.
Why do U.S. taxpayers subsidize such preaching? Why are we now using our tax dollars to hunt down and kill Muslim preachers in faraway lands?
Were there not a consensus that Hagee’s preaching merits protectiion as religion, he would be consigned to a padded cell. Or described as a terrorist and a Christian Evil Doer.
But the immediate issue here is neither about sanity nor the freedom to inspire.
The issue is what conduct you inspire. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is a no-no. Unless, of course, there’s a fire. Yell “Apocalypse” and you may find yourself in one of those cells.
What about taxpayer subsidies for televangelists who preach a nuclear Apocalypse? Why subsidize such “inspiration” in the world’s most volatile region?
Is Hagee’s inspiration subsidized because it fits into a “Judeo-Christian” narrative? What if he were calling for an Apocalypse here instead of the faraway Middle East?
What is it about a U.S.-born Islamic cleric living in Yemen, the poorest Arab nation, that makes him such a danger to Americans’ interests in the Middle East?
Who benefits from his death? Why is he so problematic?
A Contract on the New Mexican
Barack Obama, a political product of the Chicago Outfit, reportedly approved this hit.
Who persuaded this former professor of Constitutional law that this was a good idea?
What is the rationale for this contract? All we know is what’s been reported to date.
But we also know this: FBI agents were actively monitoring at least three “incidents” by Muslim Evil Doers with whom this New Mexico native was in contact:
* The two San Diego hijackers who flew jets into the World Trade Center on 911.
* The Fort Hood shooter. See: Make the Real Terrorists Accountable, and
And now we discover that he also “inspired” The Times Square Fizzler. Who knew?
Akin to an online Billy Graham for evangelical Muslims offering inspirational DVDs to his faithful flock, Mr. Awlaki appears uniquely capable of inspiring serial acts of “terrorism.”
But wait a minute. The facts confirm he advised and/or “inspired” four such incidents, including at least three incidents undertaken during FBI oversight of Awlaki.
How did the Times Square Fizzler make 16 trips to and from Pakistan with impunity? How did he show up in Manhattan to launch a high profile “incident” just as the United Nations began debate on a treaty to create a Middle East free of nuclear weapons? See: Israel Defense Official Defends Nuclear Ambiguity.
Imagine yourself seated in a darkened theater focused on a mystery thriller featuring a complex plot with several intricate subplots.
Then someone in your peripheral vision lights a fireworks sparkler. What happens to your attention? Then someone lights another. What then happens to your focus?
That’s why, in national security parlance, well-timed incidents are called “sparkle.”
Is it coincidence that Awlaki is found on the periphery of so many well-timed incidents? Why are federal law enforcement agents also found on the periphery?
Who benefits from having a Muslim cleric killed in a Muslim country by U.S. forces instead of apprehending him for questioning?
Kill him and watch this evidentiary trail vanish like the “dancing Israelis” who were spotted filming and celebrating the mass murder of 911.
For game theory war planners, a provocation is only the appetizer. The main course is the cascade of reactions that advance a narrative in support of a geopolitical agenda.
Provoked by 911, prodded by phony intelligence and duped yet again by a trusted ally, the U.S. reacted by invading Iraq, a nation now known to have no hand in that event. At last count, 1.3 million Iraqis are reportedly dead of war-related causes.
Rather than a nuclear-free Middle East, we’re now urged to invade Iran, the latest nuclear Evil Doer. Or is the next target now the Evil Doer Pakistan? How about Syria?
What’s been the reaction to our reaction to 911 among Muslims worldwide? Was our reaction modeled by game theory war planners? Are we that easily profiled? How much of the ongoing cascade of reactions-on-reactions-on-reactions could be modeled such that today’s outcomes became foreseeable—in the sense of being probable?
As Israeli war planners aptly say: “When the orchestra starts to play, we just hum along.”
What if the anticipated reactions fail to emerge on a timely basis? Are these Awlaki-inspired incidents “sparkle?”
Were they meant to distract attention and diffuse the focus required to press for an end to Israeli occupation of Palestine—including Jerusalem? Did the Times Square Fizzler further delay U.N. treaty—first proposed in 1995—that would force Israel to abandon its nuclear arsenal?
If we experience a nuclear “incident,” does it now appear more “plausibly” the work of Muslim Evil Doers? Iranians? Pakistanis? Syrians?
Or will it be the work of Israeli provocateurs?
Advancing the Narrative
Anwar al-Awlaki has the gift of gab. There’s no dispute about that. Raised in New Mexico and steeped in the Koran, his fiery rhetoric combines fluency in both pop culture and theology.
What radicalized him? What personal experiences transformed him from a glib Islamic cleric to a U.S.-bashing Muslim Evil Doer?
How about 18 months in a Yemeni prison, most of that sentence served in solitary confinement?
That alone might not suffice to turn him against his native country—unless his confinement was traceable to an American official.
Remember John Negroponte? He first emerged on the global scene as an overseer of death squads in Central America during the mid-1980s as part of the Reagan administration.
Regarded as a mass murderer by those knowledgeable in that volatile region, he reemerged in February 2005 when Secretary of State Colin Powell was dispatched to the United Nations. With Negroponte seated behind him, Powell’s credibility as a former general was associated with intelligence falsely alleging Iraq’s possession of mobile biological weapons.
Such “associative” psy-ops are business-as-usual for those skilled at displacing facts with what a targeted populace can be deceived to believe. Displacement is an essential component when waging Information Age warfare. See: Guilt By Association.
When watching Powell’s performance (he now concedes he was duped), television viewers saw over his right shoulder CIA Director George Tenet. The intelligence operative that no one could see behind Tenet was Paul Joyal, his chief of staff who boasts of being a Khazar.
Over Powell’s other shoulder peered John Negroponte, then director of national intelligence with oversight of the nation’s 16 intelligence agencies. None of those agencies now support Powell’s Power Point presentation of “facts” proving those biological weapons.
Negroponte was the U.S. official who did not object when Yemen imprisoned a U.S. citizen and held him in solitary confinement—where Awlaki immersed himself in the Koran for 18 months.
The U.S. approval of his release in 2007 suggests that he could have been released much earlier.
Try to imagine a better formula for radicalization. Who better than an outraged articulate American cleric to inspire Muslim-American Evil Doers? Or Pakistani-American patsies such as the Times Square Fizzler.
Why was Awlaki imprisoned? Equally important, why was he released? Capture him alive and we may find out. Kill him and the trail goes cold. Could that be the point?
Why has his death been ordered by a U.S. commander-in-chief? Why do Barack Obama’s advisers not want him brought in alive?
Who is the real enemy in this hall of mirrors? Faced with yet another well-timed “incident,” how do we sort out the source of this evil doing?
Do we protect U.S. national security by killing a U.S. citizen?
Think about it.
Jeff Gates along with Anthony Lawson produce this startling new video that is an absolute necessity for every American who genuinely loves his country and knows something has gone very very wrong. In Jeff’s own words:
What I tell people is that our specialty is enabling people to grasp “how” this duplicity operates in plain sight and, to date, with impunity. With that knowledge, they can sort out for themselves Who and Why. Absent that knowledge, they’re left adrift in the domain of conspiracy theorists, hate-mongers and such. We see this knowledge as essential in the transition to the Knowledge Society.
Don’t forget to join our Facebook fan page at: http://www.facebook.com/criminalstate !
The Manipulation of U.S. General Colin Powell and Pakistani Cricket Star Imran Khan
Mass media and popular culture are powerful tools of manipulation when wielded by those skilled at waging way by way of deception. When shaping the opinion of an unsuspecting public, the star power of military leaders and sports heroes is routinely appropriated.
That duplicity was on display in February 2003 when Colin Powell gave false testimony to the U.N. Security Council that helped launch the U.S.-led invasion of a Muslim nation. Similar duplicity was deployed in May 2005 when Pakistani cricket icon Imran Khan launched from Islamabad a false story that provoked outrage at the U.S. in Muslim nations.
Since the “bread and circus” era of the Roman Empire, pop culture has proven a potent means to distract and misdirect. With the modern reach of mass media, pop culture can be deployed not just to manipulate the public’s mental state but also to promote for political office high-profile personalities such as astronauts, newscasters, war heroes and even well known comedians.
Those who induced the U.S. to wage war in Iraq on false pretenses used Secretary of State Colin Powell for that purpose when he was dispatched to the U.N. to vouch for phony intelligence. The Powell “brand” as a credible four-star general was appropriated by pro-Israeli war-planners to market the false impression that Iraq had mobile biological weapons laboratories.
By deploying a public official’s known integrity to obscure their duplicity, those complicit in this deceit discredited both Powell and the U.S. while also undermining the credibility of the U.N. The phony intelligence on which Powell relied was provided by George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, and vouched for by Paul Joyal, reportedly Tenet’s Ashkenazi Chief of Staff.
A similar power-of-association ploy emerged two years later when the pop culture celebrity of Imran Khan was appropriated to provoke violence worldwide that damaged the image of the U.S. A global crisis commenced soon after those handling public relations for this legend of the cricket world summoned reporters to a May 6, 2005 press conference in Islamabad.
As an international sports figure, Khan’s star power and his position as a Pakistani politician directed media attention to an April 30th issue of Newsweek where Ashkenazi journalist Michael Isikoff reported that U.S. interrogators had flushed a Koran down a toilet in an attempt to exert pressure on Muslim combatants in custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Not until May 16th did Newsweek editors publish a partial retraction along with an apology in The New York Times conceding that the widely reported story was inadequately supported by the facts. By then Isikoff’s tale of Koran desecration had gone viral.
Game Theory Warfare
The story provoked massive anti-U.S. demonstrations in Pakistan, Lebanon, Egypt, Indonesia, Palestine, Jordan, Bangladesh, Sudan and Malaysia. Though the Guantanamo inmate retracted his statement, by then the story had done lasting damage to U.S. interests throughout the Islamic world while adding plausibility to the thematic Clash of Civilizations.
In game theory terms, the results were foreseeable because the reaction was mathematically predictable; the response could be projected—within an acceptable range of probabilities.
As an Ashkenazim-dominated global media spread this provocation worldwide, the “probabilistic” outcome induced protests in Central Asia, unrest in Uzbekistan and calls for an “Islamic revolution” in Pakistan where violent protests left 16 dead.
Why would a world-renowned Pakistani cricket star be used to publicize in Islamabad an unsubstantiated story from a U.S. magazine? Answer: Khan’s pop culture status ensured that an identifiable demographic group (cricket fans) would quickly learn about—and react to—a provocation featured in a leading U.S. news weekly.
That media-induced provocation proved its potency as the story stoked extremism. For Tel Aviv’s game theory war-planners, the anticipated response became a potent weapon in the arsenal of the agent provocateur.
Mass Media as a Geopolitical Force-Multiplier
Cricket has long been a mainstay in nations historically under British colonial rule. When the desecration story was promoted in Islamabad, the editors of Newsweek, a Washington Post publication, successfully discredited not only the U.S. but also the U.K. by provoking outrage among Muslims worldwide. A bombing in London two months later was motivated by this “desecration” according to a cousin of one of the attackers on July 7, 2005.
By associating the story with a sports icon, Newsweek breached the literacy barrier common to less developed nations (54% in Pakistan). As the story spread by word-of-mouth, this provocation reached tens of millions among the illiterate as well as sports fans of younger age for whom extreme reactions come more readily.
By launching the provocation from Pakistan, the response also weakened President Pervez Musharaff, a key U.S. ally with the Taliban active in Pakistan’s western provinces and Al Qaeda suspected of seeking refuge there. Isikoff’s tale also served as a potent recruiting tool for Islamic fundamentalists. At a critical juncture, the (foreseeable) result further endangered coalition troops and also pre-staged today’s plausibility of Pakistan as a source of jihadists.
Formerly a Musharaff supporter and anti-corruption crusader, Khan had become an outspoken critic of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. By appropriating the Khan “brand,” Newsweek assured the global reach of this provocation as a pop culture star’s celebrity gained traction for a story guaranteed to prove troublesome for the U.S.-Pakistan alliance.
The timing of this provocation also addressed a key strategic need for Israel. Initial response to the April 30th article was muted. The May 6th press conference overlapped a critical May 4th news cycle when U.S. Defense Department analyst Lawrence Franklin appeared in a U.S. District Court outside Washington where he was charged with leaking to the Israel lobby classified Pentagon materials on Iran.
The pop culture-catalyzed protests and riots diverted the public’s attention away from wartime espionage by a purported ally. Instead mainstream media marketed a tale certain to outrage Muslims abroad while downplaying facts certain to anger Americans at home. The Washington Post media group has been under Ashkenazim control since June 1933 when patriarch Eugene Meyer acquired the flagship newspaper at auction.
The Newsweek provocation also diverted attention from the fact that Franklin worked for senior pro-Israeli war-planners: Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Under Secretary Douglas Feith who oversaw the Office of Special Plans, a key source of the “fixed” intelligence that induced the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Whether appropriating Colin Powell’s integrity or Imran Khan’s celebrity, such “associative” weaponry works the same: the power of association is deployed by those adept at manipulating thought and emotion in order to influence behavior and shape policy in plain sight. Such operations are commonplace for those skilled at waging war by way of deception—the motto of the Israeli Mossad, the intelligence and foreign operations arm of the Jewish state.
From a geopolitical perspective, the appropriation of these “brands” mimics how Israel appropriated and systematically discredited Brand America. Over the six-decade history of this entangled alliance, our association with this enclave of nuclear-armed religious extremists cost us the global goodwill that an earlier generation earned at untold cost in blood and treasure.
The U.S. continues this perilous relationship only at great risk. Any nation that views this enclave as a legitimate sovereign state only further enables this trans-generational treachery.
Below is the fifth installment in a 5-part series regarding Pakistan.
To assassinate an American president with impunity requires pre-staging. For Israel to succeed would require an Evil Doer on whom the deed could plausibly be blamed. The emerging fact patterns suggest that such pre-staging is well underway and that a Pakistani could be the perceived culprit. The recent history of Evil Doer branding offers insight into what to expect.
Over the course of several years, Saddam Hussein, a brutal tyrant, morphed from a loyal and valued U.S. ally to the leader of a state portrayed as a member of the Axis of Evil ready and able to deploy weapons of mass destruction on a moment’s notice. Though that depiction was a lie; a plausible lie sufficed in the creation of a credible Evil Doer to help justify the invasion of Iraq.
Similarly, the Taliban in all its many forms have long been religious fundamentalists with an intolerant streak exceeded only by their ferocity in defense of their severe version of Islam. During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, they were celebrated as the fierce Mujahideen and heralded as heroic freedom fighters by President Ronald Reagan.
In the run-up to the provocation of 9-11, that positive “branding” abruptly changed when, six months prior to that mass murder, Afghanistan’s ancient Buddhas at Bamiyan were destroyed. When the Taliban took responsibility, they were rebranded worldwide as certifiably evil for what mainstream media portrayed as a “cultural holocaust.” When staging such power-of-association operations, timing is everything. By 9-11, the Taliban were seen as world-class Evil Doers.
A similar pre-staging is underway in the U.S as manipulated impressions become the mental building blocks to create a plausible culprit from an Islamic nation. Keep in mind that repeated reports of Iraqi WMD created a generally accepted “consensus” truth—regardless of the facts.
In a similar fashion, oft-repeated reports of the threat of Iranian WMD have steadily created the impression of a nuclear weapons capability with no basis in fact. But facts are not the point when pre-staging an Evil Doer. The point is what a targeted population can be induced to believe.
Five Muslim students in the U.S. traveled to Pakistan in mid-December, setting off a flurry of reports about the threat of “homegrown terrorism.” Every report mentioned the recent shootings at Fort Hood, Texas by a Muslim psychiatrist. A series of other incidents helped enhance the plausibility of a violent event traceable to the requisite Islamic Evil Doer.
The Justice Department announced this month that the trial of a 9-11 suspect will be held in Manhattan, with a second trial in nearby Brooklyn. In explaining the projected $150 million cost, local officials likened the extensive security to what is required for a New Year’s Eve celebration—only lasting for months. These trials are akin to a high profile publicity campaign certain to keep Americans on edge while enhancing the plausibility of “Islamic” violence.
Insecurity, Plausibility & Accessibility
Yet how could an assassin reach the most closely guarded president of modern times? The plausibility of a security breach has already been pre-staged. At the first state dinner by Obama, two aspiring contestants for a reality television show foiled White House security to come within handshake distance of the president. Though no one has yet conceded how that could have happened, both the president and the First Lady have an Ashkenazi chief of staff.
Bodyguards were protecting Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin when in November 1995 a Likud Party member shot him at close range. Assassin Yigal Amir invoked a concept from ultra-orthodox Judaism to justify his murder of Rabin as a threat to Jews living in the settlements. Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu led a series of rallies that Rabin described as provoking violence. Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister in June 1996 and immediately sought to inhibit implementation of the Oslo land-for-peace process agreed to by Rabin.
That same year, Richard Perle led a Jewish-American team to prepare for Netanyahu a new policy titled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e., Israel). Then a member of the U.S. Defense Policy Board, Perle became its chairman in 2001. The central theme of A Clean Break: Israel should halt the return of Palestinian land and instead pursue an aggressive strategy that included as a priority the removal of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Should pro-Israeli extremists detect an inclination by Barack Obama to endorse a return of Palestinian land to the Palestinians, the likelihood of his assassination will greatly increase. For his death to appear plausibly due to an Islamic source requires pre-staging akin to what is now ongoing. To displace facts with what the public can be induced to believe requires a period of mental preparation in order to make misdirection believable.
In July 2006, for instance, authors Jim Gilchrist and Jerome Corsi published Minutemen claiming that Hezbollah terrorists are sneaking across the Mexican border and plotting another 9-11. Minutemen was launched at Ground Zero, the site of the 9-11 attack, 14 days after Israel invaded Lebanon—in pursuit of Hezbollah. Had the U.S. suffered another attack, Iran-backed Hezbollah would have been the perceived culprit, providing a plausible rationale attack Iran.
Corsi remains a prolific source of prepare-the-minds publications, including Atomic Iran released in early 2005 and calling for either the U.S. or Israel to preemptively bomb the “mad mullahs of Iran.” His latest release is The Obama Nation. With a first print run of 475,000, his attack on the presidential contender immediately topped The New York Times nonfiction bestseller list. Should Obama be murdered, Corsi’s book will provide an incremental component of plausibility that the assassin was opposed not to his changed policies on Israel but to his “socialism.”
An Agenda in Need of a Crisis
Other recent incidents enhance the plausibility that an assassin could enter the U.S. from abroad. Homeland Security conceded this month that a sensitive transportation security screening manual was posted on the Internet. The ordering of more troops to Afghanistan enhances the plausibility that extremists will be driven across the border into Pakistan, only to travel from there to the U.S.
Obama’s Nobel Prize associated him with peace laureate Martin Luther King Jr. Were Obama also to die at the hands of an assassin, his “brand” has now been sufficiently enhanced that he would become an iconic figure. If Zionist extremists fail to provoke a crisis in the Middle East or South Asia, the murder of America’s first Black president would suffice as an attention-diverting crisis—particularly if those who produced his candidacy use his death to catalyze hatred between whites and blacks in the same way that they now market hatred for Muslims.
So long as Barack Obama continues to serve Israeli interests, he will continue to live a charmed life. Should he hint that justice—say for the Palestinians—is a worthy goal, the pre-staging is in place to eliminate that threat. Likewise should he seek to shut down the ongoing oligarch-ization of America and the steady piling on of disabling debt.
Should his death provoke race riots, the Department of Homeland Security is prepared to protect the agent provocateurs—under the guise of defending the perpetrators from anti-Semitism.
Would Israel assassinate a U.S. president? What kind of world would we now inhabit if Senator William Fulbright and Attorney General Robert Kennedy had succeeded in 1962 in forcing the Israel Lobby to register as a foreign agent? How would the world be different if John F. Kennedy had succeeded in 1963 in forcing international inspections of Israel’s nuclear facility?
When Robert Kennedy announced for the presidency in 1968, Tel Aviv did not know if he would revive JFK’s campaign to prevent Israel from igniting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Nor did anyone know if he and Fulbright would again seek transparency for Israeli operations disguised as domestic lobbying.
When RFK was murdered in June 1968, the gunman was Palestinian. That lesson should not be lost on Pakistan. In dealing with Washington, Islamabad should also recall Senator Fulbright’s candid assessment in 1973: “Israel controls the U.S. Senate.” He was gone by 1974, thirty-five influence-imbedding years ago.
Below is the fourth installment in a 5-part series regarding Pakistan
In April 2009, Tel Aviv signed a $1.1 billion agreement to provide New Delhi an advanced tactical air defense system developed by Raytheon, a U.S. defense contractor. That agreement confirmed what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had earlier announced: “Our ties with India don’t have any limitation….”
In May 2009, Israel delivered to India the first of three Phalcon Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) shifting the balance of conventional weapons in the region by giving India air dominance over Pakistan.
Israel has overtaken Russia as India’s chief arms supplier as New Delhi announced $50 billion in defense modernization outlays from 2007 to 2012. The fast emerging fact patterns suggest there is far more implied for Pakistan in this “special defense relationship” than meets the eye.
In August 2008, Ashkenazim General David Kezerashvili returned to his native Georgia from Tel Aviv to lead an assault on separatists in South Ossetia with the support of Tel Aviv-provided arms and military training provided by Israel Defense Forces. That crisis ignited Cold War tensions between the U.S. and Russia, key members of the Quartet (along with the EU and the UN) pledged to resolve the six-decade Israel-Palestine conflict.
Little was reported in mainstream media about the Israeli interest in a pipeline across Georgia meant to move Caspian oil through Turkey and on to Eurasia with Tel Aviv a profit-extracting intermediary undercutting Russia’s oil industry. Nor did mainstream media report on the self-reinforcing nature of serial well-timed crises that emerged in a compressed time frame.
For example, on August 7, 2008, the ruling coalition led by Asif Ali Zarderi called for a no-confidence vote in Parliament on president Pervez Musharraf just as he was scheduled to depart for the Summer Olympics in Beijing. On August 8, heavy fighting erupted overnight in South Ossetia while the heads of state of both Russia and the U.S. were in Beijing.
What other crises were then unfolding? But for pro-Israeli influence inside the U.S. government, would our State Department have backed the corrupt Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, leading to record-level poppy production involving Karzai’s brother? Is the heroin epidemic presently eroding Russian society traceable to Israel’s fabled game theory war-planners who are infamous for disabling their targets from the inside out?
Three months after the crisis in Georgia, a terrorist attack in Mumbai renewed fears of nuclear tension between India and Pakistan. When the Mumbai attackers struck a hostel managed by Chabad Lubavitch, an ultra-orthodox Jewish sect from New York, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni announced from Tel Aviv: “Our world is under attack.”
See: “Israel and 9-11”
By early December, Jewish journalists were arguing that Israel must “fortify the security of Jewish institutions worldwide.” In the U.S., the Department of Homeland Security continued its policy of dispersing U.S. taxpayer funds to protect synagogues and Jewish community centers.
Soon after “India’s 9-11” was found to include personnel recruited from Pakistan’s western tribal region, President Zardari announced an agreement with Taliban tribal chiefs to allow Sharia law to govern a swath of the North West Frontier Province where Al Qaeda members reportedly reside.
The perception of Pakistani cooperation with “Islamic extremists” created the impression of enhanced insecurity and vulnerability for the U.S. and its allies. That perceived threat was widely reported by mainstream media as proof of the imminent perils of “militant Islam.”
With religious extremists portrayed as operating freely in a nuclear-armed Islamic state, Tel Aviv gained traction for its claim that a nuclear-Islamic Tehran posed an “existential threat” to the Jewish state. Meanwhile Israel’s election of an ultra-nationalist governing coalition led by Benjamin Netanyahu further delayed resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
More delay ensured more extremism and gained more media traction for those marketing a perpetual “global war on terrorism” and its thematic counterpart, The Clash of Civilizations. After the assault in Mumbai, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni argued: “Israel, India and the rest of the free world are positioned in the forefront of the battle against terrorists and extremism.” By its exclusion, Pakistan was implicated as harboring terrorists.
Few Americans understand that Pakistan is dominantly Sunni and, unlike Iran’s Shi’a, abhors theocratic rule and the religious extremism common to Al Qaeda as well as the assorted strains of fundamentalism found among the Taliban. Game theory war planning suggests that Pakistan, not India, was the target of India’s 9-11. As with our 9-11, the strategic objective was not the event itself but the anticipated reaction—and the reactions to that reaction.
Advised by legions of Ashkenazim, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s October 2009 mission to Pakistan was a diplomatic disaster. Right on cue, a terrorist attack in Peshwar killed dozens just as she arrived in Islamabad. Abrasive, arrogant and aloof, our top diplomat reinforced Pakistani concerns that their nation is surrounded by hostile forces.
Clinton’s behavior fueled fears that the government of Pakistan is being set up for portrayal as a “failed state” by ultra-nationalist Jewish advisers to a nation—the U.S.—it has long considered a friend. When Barack Obama hosted the prime minister of India for his first state dinner, the anxiety level in Pakistan was heightened—particularly among those familiar with the dominance of Ashkenazi advisers in the Obama White House.
Societal Conflict—By Consensus
Meanwhile, India’s oligarchs continued to amass wealth and influence at a record pace as the caste system maintained its stranglehold on Hindu society. By 2007, India’s 40 billionaires had amassed a combined wealth of $351 billion, up from a combined wealth of $170 billion just since 2006. Though New Delhi cites the success of its high-tech sector and its “Bollywood” film industry as signs of a burgeoning middle class, the reality is far from reassuring.
As in Russia where the wealth from privatization migrated to a small cadre of dominantly Ashkenazi oligarchs, a similar oligarch-ization is ongoing in India. While maintaining a vast underclass of “untouchables” mired in grinding poverty, India’s policy making elite gravitated to an economic model that traces its U.S. roots to the University of Chicago where Barack Obama taught for 11 years while he was being groomed for political office.
The “Chicago Model” advances in plain sight behind an implied assumption that financial freedom is an appropriate proxy for personal freedom. Despite facts confirming that wealth and income are concentrating at record rates worldwide, this “consensus” model insists that nations vest their faith in the infallibility of unfettered financial markets.
As that finance-fixated mindset morphed into the “Washington” consensus, the U.S.-dominated international financial institutions imbedded this narrow worldview in law worldwide. As with ordinary Russians, ordinary Indians see their rising prosperity dominated by an caste oligarchy that steadily amasses outsized wealth along with disproportionate political influence.
As wealth concentrates, democracies become unworkable; as income concentrates, markets become unsustainable. Those profiled in Guilt By Association and the forthcoming Criminal State series are skilled in displacing facts with what targeted populations can be deceived to believe. Today’s money-myopic “consensus” traces its roots to a subculture within a subculture within a subculture whose belief in the unbridled pursuit of money preempts all other values.
The India-Israel alliance has inflicted on the economy of India the same paradigm that is systematically disabling the U.S. economy—from the inside out—while creating record gaps in wealth and income. Pakistan has an opportunity to resist the embrace of this flawed model and, by so doing, inspire other nations—including the U.S.—to devise a sensible path forward.
Next in the series: When Will Israel Assassinate Barack Obama?
Below is the third installment in a 5-part series regarding Pakistan.
The destabilization of Pakistan began with the December 2007 murder of Benazir Bhutto after Mark Siegel, her Ashkenazi biographer and lobbyist, assured U.S. diplomats that her return was “the only possible way we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact.” That advice is consistent with how Israel wages game theory warfare. See:
Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf signed his own political death warrant when he announced that resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict was essential to resolve conflicts in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan. Should Barack Obama concede the truth of that long-obvious fact, Zionist extremists may well ensure that his presidency is brought to an abrupt end.
In terms of game theory strategy, it came as no surprise to see the prominent media profile given five young American Muslims when they traveled to Pakistan this month while leaving behind a videotape explaining, “Muslims must do something.” That understandable reaction to emerging events helped fuel the plausibility of Pakistan as a haven for training what mainstream media in the U.S. promoted as “home-grown terrorists” posing an imminent threat to national security. See:
That game theory-predictable reaction emerged soon after President Obama, in effect, endorsed yet another major expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Meanwhile the Israel Lobby-dominated U.S. Congress voted overwhelmingly (344 to 36) to condemn the Goldstone Report documenting dozens of Israeli war crimes against Muslims in Gaza.
The report by Richard Goldstone, an eminent South African Jewish jurist, also included evidence of ongoing crimes against humanity. Meanwhile our president remained silent, our U.N. Ambassador supported Israeli efforts to quash the report and our Secretary of State hurled insults at Islamabad.
War crimes and crimes against humanity are key components of the agent provocateur strategy required to ensure the extremism from which this enclave of Jewish extremists claims a need for protection. By providing that protection—with no mention of decades of serial provocations—the U.S. appears guilty by its association with Israel’s notoriously aggressive behavior.
The Way Forward
Pakistanis must acknowledge the obvious: we Americans have lost control over our government. Barack Obama is only the latest U.S. president to enable an agent provocateur strategy that allows Zionists to wage war in plain sight and, to date, with legal and political impunity.
Meanwhile the aggressor continues to portray itself as the perennial victim in need of ever more military assistance. After six decades of nonstop duplicity, our entangled alliance with Jewish religious fanatics has transformed the U.S. into the world’s greatest threat to peace due to our “special relationship” with a brutal enclave of game theory war-planners.
The Ashkenazi dominance of U.S. media ensures that the common source of this geopolitical manipulation remains unknown to Americans though it is widely understood abroad. We need help—from outside the U.S.—to grasp a disturbing fact: the same Zionist operatives who deceived us to invade Iraq for Greater Israel also induced us to pile on debt and debase our currency while profiting on our foreseeable decline.
Americans do not yet grasp that the real risk to national security is an enemy within. The greatest threat to this transnational criminal syndicate is two-fold: transparency and stability. Their continued success relies on sustained chaos, serial mass murders and well-timed crises.
Transparency may emerge from the ongoing Iraq Inquiry in the U.K. Testimony taken by that high profile panel heightens the risk that Israel, not Islam, will be exposed as the global center of terrorism. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair could face war crime charges for his complicity in using false pretenses to order British forces to join the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
Stability also poses a risk. With stability, Americans may realize that the phony intelligence deployed to induce our invasion of Iraq came from a common source with a common motivation. Americans know that something fundamental is amiss.
Ordinary Americans are hurting. A long-deceived U.S. public is looking for answers to how their nation was reduced to such a perilous condition—financially, militarily and diplomatically. How were we transformed from prosperous leaders of the post-WWII era into a global pariah flirting with insecurity and instability while teetering on the edge of bankruptcy?
With access to the real facts, Americans will realize that the real enemy is lodged deep inside our government. And deep inside our own manipulated beliefs about who is friend and who is foe. The true enemy is not the high-profile “assets” (the Clintons, G.W. Bush, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, et.al.) but those low-profile operatives who produced their political careers and positioned them for high office as pliable and reliable policy makers.
The stunning subterfuge by which the “Coalition of the Willing” was induced to wage a war for Greater Israel may first work its way to clarity in the U.K. Tony Blair has already conceded that, absent the success of the phony intelligence on WMD, he “would have had to use and deploy different arguments about the nature of the threat.”
With 1.3 million Iraqis dead from war-related causes, a war crimes tribunal must be part of the remedy so that never again is duplicity allowed to operate on such a scale. In game theory terms, the cost of complicity in such conduct must be explicit, severe and foreseeable.
Expect Another Crisis
The risk of exposure, in turn, increases the strategic necessity for yet another well-timed crisis, with Pakistan a vulnerable target for the next regime change. When Americans gain access to the unvarnished facts, we will insist on regime change here. That process will accelerate as voters grasp that this corruption lies deeply imbedded inside both major U.S. political parties as proven by Barack Obama’s rapid ascendancy to the presidency.
At present, ordinary Americans simply do not know the scope of the current criminality. Americans are not stupid; we’re just badly misinformed—and purposefully so. Our system of informed choice steadily atrophied as a transnational criminal syndicate steadily gained dominance in mainstream media. The depth of this corruption suggests the potential for a dramatic change in U.S. politics as Americans identify its common source.
The U.S. and Pakistan share a common enemy in those who are adept at displacing facts with what a targeted population can be deceived to believe. To prevail in this sophisticated form of Information Age warfare, we must fight as allies to rid our nations from the influence of those who would have us hate each other in order to advance their extremist agenda.
As Americans and Pakistanis learn how modern-day warfare is waged in plain sight—by way of deception—they will see for themselves the source of this treachery. With that knowledge will come the resolve required to prevail. See:
Next in the series: The Israel/India Alliance
Below is the second installment in a 5-part series regarding Pakistan.
Be not deceived by Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name or by the fact that he spent several childhood years in Indonesia. His political career is a product of a Westside Chicago Ashkenazi network with roots that trace directly back to organized crime of the 1920s.
Top fundraiser Penny Pritzker traces her family lineage to grandfather Abe and great-grandfather Nicholas who served as lawyers for organized crime. She declined a nomination as Secretary of Commerce in the Obama Cabinet, a post typically offered top fundraisers. Her confirmation hearings could have proved a political embarrassment by reminding us of the suspect origins of “our” latest president.
Clinton White House counsel Abner Mikva aptly described this high-profile product of the Chicago Outfit as “the first Jewish president.” Plus his Vice President, only a heartbeat from the reins of power, is the reliably obsequious Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden.
For his Secretary of State, Obama appointed a presidential rival, Hillary Clinton, whose political career traces to the same source. After serving as First Lady in the presidency of Arkansas native Bill Clinton, she fled to New York to run for the U.S. Senate knowing she could not win an election—any election—in Arkansas where she is widely reviled.
By staking out extreme pro-Israeli positions, she joined New York Senator Charles Schumer as, in practical effect, the second Jewish Senator from a key electoral state long dominated by this trans-generational criminal syndicate.
The chiefs of staff for Barack and Michele Obama are both Ashkenazim from Chicago, long a center of foreign espionage. That fact was recently reconfirmed by Federal Bureau of Investigation translator Sibel Edmonds when, from FBI wiretaps, she documented the close working relationship between the Israel Lobby and U.S. officials with power over policy making in the Middle East, including Richard Perle, Wolfowitz understudy Douglas Feith and key members of Congress.
Earlier this month, a Chicago man whose father was a Pakistani diplomat was charged with involvement in planning “India’s 911.” In practical effect, the murder of 166 people in Mumbai, India’s financial center, accelerated the destabilization of Pakistan by drawing troops out of the western provinces for redeployment along the eastern border with India. See:
Why Outside Help Is Required
The same syndicate working to destabilize Pakistan is also destabilizing the U.S.—from the inside. That’s why ordinary Americans need the assistance of Pakistanis and others outside the U.S. to restore some semblance of representative government.
The confidence with which this game theory aggression progressed in plain sight could be seen in the behavior of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a key Zionist insider. Four days after 9-11 while in a principals’ meeting at Camp David, a presidential retreat outside Washington, he proposed that the U.S. invade Iraq. At that time, the intelligence did not point to Iraqi involvement and Osama bin Laden was thought to be hiding in a remote region of Afghanistan.
On that same day, San Diego FBI Special Agent Stephen Butler interrogated Iraqi Munther Ghazal at his home near San Diego to determine if he was funding Mel Rockefeller with whom Ghazal traveled to Baghdad in early 1997. After meeting for several days with Nidhal al-Hamdani, a top nuclear physicist with oversight of Iraq’s mothballed nuclear weapons program, Rockefeller returned to the U.S. with a practical proposal for removing Saddam Hussein without this war and without triggering a violent and destabilizing insurgency.
[Insert 1997 photo of Nidhal al-Hamdani in her office on phone with Saddam Hussein.]
When regional specialists at the U.S. Department of State declined to meet with him, he traveled to Ottawa in April 1997 where he met with Middle East specialists in the Canadian government to ensure a written record would confirm there was an alternative to war in Iraq—six years before the invasion. Instead of debriefing him, FBI agents sought to discredit him.
[Insert fax of April 1997 from Canadian officials to James M. Rockefeller.]
Though FBI agents interviewed Munther Ghazal numerous times, they have yet to meet with Mel Rockefeller. Four packages sent to the Phoenix divisional office of the FBI documenting ongoing treason and criminal stalking were returned, marked “refused.”
FBI Special Agent Butler cashed checks and paid rent for the two San Diego-based hijackers who piloted planes into the World Trade Center towers. The same Iman who counseled Major Nidal Hasan (with FBI knowledge) before he was transferred to Fort Hood—where he went on a shooting spree—also counseled the San Diego-based hijackers—likewise with FBI knowledge.
As of December 18, 2009, no one from either federal law enforcement or national security had debriefed Mel Rockefeller—eight years after 9-11. Had he been engaged in good faith in early 1997 after his return from Baghdad or in early 2001 after his return from Jakarta, the facts suggest that 9-11 might well have been prevented. Good faith engagement after 9-11 could have prevented the invasion of Iraq. Instead, extraordinary steps were taken to discredit him.
When President George H.W. Bush declined to invade Baghdad to remove Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War, Pentagon Under Secretary for Policy Paul Wolfowitz imposed a No-Fly Zone in northern Iraq. By the time that the invasion of March 2003 began, the Israeli Mossad had more than 100 agents deployed for a decade in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.
Intelligence reports of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda were also traced to Mosul—reports that proved false. Mosul again emerged in November 2004 as a center of the insurgency that destabilized Iraq. That reaction precluded the speedy exit of coalition forces promised in Congressional testimony by senior war-planner Wolfowitz.
In the lead-up to the invasion, Wolfowitz assured policy-makers of a swift and welcome regime-change whose $50 billion cost would be recovered from the proceeds of Iraqi oil. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz has since projected the total cost will exceed $3,000 billion, all of it borrowed. That total, 60 times the original estimate, includes $700 billion in interest paid on war-related debt.
Below is the first installment in a 5-part series related to Pakistan
Ordinary Americans need the assistance of Islamabad now more than at any time in the past six decades. That aid lies not in combating “Islamo fascism” but in countering the influence inside the U.S. of Israeli war-planners known for their expertise at provoking extremism. To grasp what must be done requires a review of three related developments.
First is a policy-making legacy from the era of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Second is a little known account of an Israeli attempt to corrupt policy-making in Indonesia, home to the world’s largest Muslim population. Third is confirmation that, by its steady growth in influence over the past six decades, Israel is now shaping U.S. policy to advance a Judeo-fascist agenda.
The Bhutto Legacy
Soon after Richard Nixon was elected president in November 1968, Dr. Glenn Olds traveled to Dubrovnik to meet with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. The popular Bhutto knew China’s Chou En-Lai with whom he had studied in Moscow. Dr. Olds traveled on Nixon’s behalf to ask that Bhutto intercede with China.
As a young foreign minister for President Ayub Khan, Bhutto forged stronger Pakistani ties with China after the Sino-Indian war of 1962. That relationship led to a large number of Sino-Pakistan industrial and military projects.
When he signed the Sino-Pakistan Boundary Agreement of March 1963, the father of Benazir Bhutto (then age 10) emerged as one of the most visible Pakistanis on the world stage. By the 1968 meeting in Yugoslavia, the politically ambitious Bhutto had been arrested and released by Ayub, sparking political unrest that led to Ayub’s resignation and Bhutto’s ascendancy to the presidency in December 1971 and prime minister in 1973.
The Dubrovnik meeting marked America’s first step in the normalization of relations with China. Bhutto’s assistance also helped hasten the end of the U.S. war in Vietnam. Following the Nixon inaugural in January 1969, Dr. Olds was appointed U.N. Ambassador after he helped recruit more than 1,000 people for Nixon, including Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
As Executive Dean of the 64-campus State University of New York for Governor Nelson Rockefeller, Dr. Olds crafted a memo for the governor urging that he campaign for the presidency in 1968 on a platform promising to end the Vietnam War and normalize relations with China. One key challenge: making contact with Mao Tse-Tung who had never left China. Thus Dr. Olds’ strategy proposed Bhutto as the intermediary to Mao through Chou En-Lai.
When Nelson Rockefeller opted not to run in 1968 (at least initially), he urged that Dr. Olds share the strategy with others. When Pepsi Chairman Don Kendall brought the memo to Nixon’s attention, the candidate agreed to include the strategy in his campaign and, should he win, asked that Dr. Olds help form an administration. Henry Kissinger received the Nobel peace prize in 1973 for advancing policies that began with that memo for Nelson Rockefeller.
Dr. Olds conveyed to me this account in 2003. Since 1994, he had served as the senior adviser to James M. (“Mel”) Rockefeller. An adviser to four presidents (two of each party) and four of the five third-generation Rockefeller brothers, Dr. Olds died in March 2006 after describing his dismay at “the depth of the treason” uncovered by Mel Rockefeller. That treason remains ongoing—a key reason Americans need the assistance of Pakistan.
Guilt By Association marks the first release in the Criminal State series of books. The series documents a deeply imbedded criminality coordinated through the same trans-generational network of Jewish Zionists granted nation-state recognition in 1948 by Harry Truman, a Christian Zionist president.
As these facts become transparent and the perpetrators apparent, Pakistan—as an ally of the U.S.—must play a leadership role in the Muslim community by insisting that the U.S. withdraw its recognition of this extremist enclave as a legitimate nation-state.
Absent that withdrawal, Americans will continue to be endangered by those who believe that U.S. behavior reflects the policies of our government rather than the policies of Zionist extremists imbedded inside our government. See:
The Indonesian Connection
Dr. Olds knew about Mel Rockefeller’s meetings in Jakarta in mid-March 2001 with Arie Kumaat, Director of Indonesian Intelligence. The defense minister of India had just been toppled by a bribe involving an Israeli defense firm. Malaysian intelligence had just discovered a similar attempt by Tel Aviv to discredit its defense chief—likewise six months prior to 9-11.
Kumaat had uncovered a multi-billion dollar Israeli bribe to the Indonesian parliament to push the U.S. out of the region in favor of China. Kumaat balked at reporting his findings to the U.S. embassy for fear that he was also reporting to Israel. From 1986-1989, the U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia was Zionist war-planner Paul Wolfowitz.
Not until the mass murder of 9-11 did Dr. Olds fully grasp how Mel Rockefeller’s lengthy experience could prove the common Judeo-fascist source of much of the world’s violence. After that murderous provocation, Kumaat agreed to arrange a meeting for Mel Rockefeller with former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid, a respected religious leader for 80 million moderate Muslim men. A follow-on meeting was anticipated with Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir who has long opposed the geopolitical manipulations of Jewish extremists.
[Insert March 2001 Photo of Mel Rockefeller with Arie Kumaat in Jakarta restaurant.]
That Islam-focused strategy for blocking the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was stymied when, in January 2002, Kumaat died of a heart attack—the plausible reason given for his death though an autopsy by his wife detected the drug used to induce a heart attack. An interview of his son, Henrie, confirmed the details.
[Insert March 2001 Photo of Mel Rockefeller with Glenn Olds and Henrie Kumaat in Oregon.]
We now know that 911-related intelligence was “fixed” around a preset agenda for Greater Israel long sought by Israelis and pro-Israelis with the help of Iraqi liar Ahmad Chalabi, an asset developed over decades by Zionist war-planners Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.
Pakistan must realize that the same mental and emotional manipulation deployed to induce a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is now being used to provoke an invasion of Iran. By destabilizing Pakistan and portraying its western provinces as a haven for Al Qaeda, Zionists will make it appear that Islamabad’s nuclear arsenal is insecure. That perception heightens the plausibility of an attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran, citing a nuclear risk. See:
That perceived insecurity also strengthens the rationale for an Israeli operation—flying the U.S. flag—to take over the government of Pakistan. What could soon happen to Islamabad directly is what happened to the U.S. over decades indirectly. See:
The Depth of the Duplicity
Pakistan must quickly realize—and candidly acknowledge—that the Obama presidency is even more thoroughly staffed by Zionists than the Bush administration and even the notoriously pro-Israeli Clinton presidency.
In 2003, Dr. Olds shared an insight about Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who claimed an epiphany in 1997 that she was Jewish—after she became our top diplomat. In 1951, while serving as chaplain at the University of Denver, Dr. Olds was dispatched as the university emissary to welcome to Denver the wife and daughter of Soviet Bloc defector Josef Korbel, a former Czech diplomat and then professor of international studies.
Dr. Olds described how the future Mrs. Albright—then a pigtailed teenager with braces—stepped onto the train platform carrying the family menorah. He knew the family well. He dismissed her “epiphany” decades later as “simply not believable.”
Josef Korbel emerged as the mentor to Condoleezza Rice when she entered the University of Denver at an impressionable age 15 and he guided her into Russian studies. In September 2000, Albright named the State Department building after Harry Truman, the president best known abroad for overruling his Secretary of State George C. Marshall in 1948 when the former WWII general strenuously objected to our recognition of an extremist enclave as a legitimate state.
Next in the series: Zionist Dominance in the Obama Presidency
“It’s very good….Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)”.
Response of former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when asked on September 11, 2001 what the attacks meant for U.S.-Israeli relations
Game theory war-planners rely on mathematical models to anticipate and shape outcomes with staged provocations. For the agent provocateur, the reactions to a provocation—as well as the reactions to those reactions—thereby become predictable within an acceptable range of probabilities.
With ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan poised to expand to Iran and Pakistan, it is time to take a closer look at how conflicts are catalyzed—by way of deception.
When Israeli game theorist Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in economic science, he conceded from Jerusalem, “the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel” has turned “Israel into the leading authority in this field.” A professor at the Center for the Study of Rationality at Hebrew University, Aumann’s Nobel lecture, titled “War and Peace,” expounded on the rationality of war.
With a well-modeled provocation, a target’s anticipated reaction can even become a weapon in the aggressor’s arsenal. In response to the provocation of 9-11, how difficult was it to foresee that the U.S. would deploy its military to avenge that attack? With U.S. intelligence “fixed” by well-placed insiders around a predetermined goal, how difficult was it to anticipate that the reaction to 9-11 could be redirected to wage war in Iraq?
The emotional component of a provocation plays a key role in game theory warfare. With the nationally televised mass murder of 3,000 people, a state of shock, grief and outrage made it easier for Americans to believe that a known Evil Doer in Iraq was responsible—regardless of the facts.
For false beliefs to displace real facts requires mental preconditioning so that a targeted population can be persuaded to put their faith in fictions. That conditioning enhances the probability of a successful deception. Those who deceived the U.S. to invade Iraq in March 2003 began a decade beforehand to lay the “mental threads” and make the requisite mental associations to advance that agenda.
Notable among those threads was the 1993 publication in Foreign Affairs of a theme-setting article by Harvard University professor Samuel Huntington. By the time his analysis appeared in book-length form in 1996 as The Clash of Civilizations, more than 100 think tanks were prepared to promote it. The result created a widely touted narrative—a thematic storyline—supporting a “clash consensus” five years before 9-11 provided a plausible rationale for war.
Also published in 1996 under the guidance of Richard Perle was A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e., Israel). A member since 1987 of the U.S. Defense Policy Board, this self-professed Zionist became its chairman in 2001.
As an adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Perle’s Pentagon advisory post provided a powerful insider position to shape the national security mindset around the removal of Saddam Hussein, a key theme of A Clean Break—released five years before 9-11. That same year Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress at the invitation of Newt Gingrich, the Christian Zionist Speaker of the House.
Murders, books, articles, think tanks and well-placed insiders are common components in a “probabilistic” model deployed by war-planning game theorists. Lawmakers are also a customary ingredient. They provide credibility and a facade of legitimacy—a critical element when inducing a nation to war with phony intelligence fixed around a preset agenda.
That role was eagerly filled by Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from Arizona, when they co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. By promoting Israel’s 1996 agenda for Securing the Realm, their legislation laid yet another mental thread in the public mindset by calling for the ouster of Saddam Hussein—three years before 9-11.
The legislation also appropriated $97 million to promote their agenda. Distracted by mid-term Congressional elections and impeachment proceedings catalyzed by a well-timed presidential affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton signed that Zionist agenda into law in October 1998—4-1/2 years before a U.S.-led invasion removed the Iraqi leader.
After 9-11, McCain and Lieberman became inseparable travel companions and irrepressible advocates for the invasion of Iraq. Striking a presidential pose aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in January 2002, McCain—a son and grandson of admirals—laid another mental thread when he waved an admiral’s cap and proclaimed, alongside Lieberman, “On to Baghdad.”
By Way of Deception
The confidence with which this game theory strategy progressed in plain sight could be seen in the behavior of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, another Zionist insider. Four days after 9-11 while in a principals’ meeting at Camp David, he proposed that the U.S. invade Iraq. At that time, the intelligence did not point to Iraqi involvement and Osama bin Laden was thought to be hiding in a remote region of Afghanistan.
On that same day, San Diego FBI Special Agent Stephen Butler interrogated Iraqi Munther Ghazal at his home near San Diego to determine if he was funding Mel Rockefeller, an American with whom Ghazal traveled to Baghdad in early 1997. After meeting for several days with a top nuclear physicist with oversight of Iraq’s mothballed nuclear weapons program, Rockefeller returned to the U.S. with a practical proposal for removing Saddam Hussein without this war and without triggering an insurgency.
When regional specialists at the U.S. Department of State would not meet with him, he traveled to Ottawa in April 1997 where he met with Middle East specialists in the Canadian government to ensure a written record was made to confirm there was an alternative to war in Iraq—six years before the invasion. Instead of debriefing him, FBI agents sought to discredit him. Though FBI agents interviewed Ghazal many times, they have yet to meet with Mel Rockefeller.
Agent Butler cashed checks and paid rent for the two San Diego-based hijackers who piloted planes into the World Trade Center towers. The same Iman counseling Major Nidal Hasan (with FBI knowledge) before he was transferred to Fort Hood also counseled the San Diego-based hijackers—with FBI knowledge. As of December 1, 2009, no one from the FBI or national security had debriefed Mel Rockefeller—eight years after 9-11.
When President George H.W. Bush declined to invade Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War, Pentagon Under Secretary for Policy Paul Wolfowitz imposed a No-Fly Zone in northern Iraq. By the invasion of March 2003, the Israeli Mossad had agents deployed for a decade in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.
Intelligence reports of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda were also traced to Mosul—reports that proved false. Mosul again emerged in November 2004 as a center of the insurgency that destabilized Iraq. That reaction precluded the speedy exit of coalition forces promised in Congressional testimony by senior war-planner Wolfowitz in the lead-up to the invasion.
An Inside Job?
The common pro-Israeli source of the phony intelligence that induced war in Iraq has yet to be acknowledged even though intelligence experts agree that deception on such a scale required a decade to plan, staff, pre-stage, orchestrate and—until now—cover up. The leaders of the 9-11 Commission conceded they were thwarted by Commission members adamantly opposed to hearing testimony on the hijackers’ motivation for 9-11: the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
The fictions reported as facts by mainstream media included Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories and Iraqi purchases of “yellowcake” uranium from Niger. Only the last claim was conceded as bogus prior to the invasion.
Only after the war began were the balance of the claims disclosed as false, flawed or outright fabricated. An attempt to punish former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Joe Wilson for his exposure of the phony yellowcake account led to a federal conviction of vice-presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby, another well-placed Zionist insider.
The multi-decade consistency of agent-provocateur fact patterns suggests that this game theory-modeled warfare includes the Israeli provocation that catalyzed the Second Intifada. An intifada is an uprising or, literally, a “shaking off” of an oppressor. The Second Intifada dates from September 2000 when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon led an armed march to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount—one year before 9-11.
After a year of calm during which Palestinians believed that Israel was sincere about peace, suicide bombings recommenced. As Sharon conceded, his march was meant to demonstrate Israeli control over a site considered holy by Muslims worldwide. In response to this second failed attempt at “shaking off” Israeli domination, Sharon and Netanyahu observed that only when Americans “feel our pain” would they understand the plight of the victimized Israelis.
These Likud Party leaders commented that the requisite empathy (“feel our pain”) would require a weighted body count of 4,500 to 5,000 Americans lost to terrorism—the initial estimate of those who died in the twin towers of the World Trade Center—one year later.
In other words, only with pain could we identify with the Israelis. Does that mean that only with a mass murder could we be induced to respond with our military to advance their agenda? Was the U.S. response mathematically modeled at the Center for the Study of Rationality? Seven months after 9-11, Benjamin Netanyahu gave a speech in a U.S. Senate office building where he was introduced by Senators Jon Kyl and Joe Liebermn
When successful, game theory warfare strengthens the agent provocateur while leaving the target discredited and depleted by the anticipated reaction. By game theory standards, 9-11 was a strategic success because the U.S.—by its response—was widely criticized for waging war on false pretenses. Only in hindsight did a deceived public realize that Iraq had nothing to do with that mass murder. However, that invasion had everything to do with “securing the realm.”
Our response (predictably) triggered a deadly insurgency with devastating consequences for Iraqis, the U.S. and a “coalition of the willing” led to war by a successfully duped U.S. From a game theory perspective, that insurgency was a predictable reaction in a nation populated by three long-feuding sects: Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. A violent invasion led by a nation closely allied with Jewish nationalists only further fueled the flames of violence and extremism—another foreseeable outcome.
Until the U.S.-led invasion, peace was maintained by an unsavory dictator and former U.S. ally who was rebranded an Evil Doer in the lead-up to war. As the cost in blood and treasure from our “liberation” of Iraq expanded, the U.S. became overextended militarily, financially and diplomatically.
The sectarian violence unleashed in Iraq is precisely what Messrs. Rockefeller and Ghazal were cautioned against in early 1997 should Saddam Hussein be removed suddenly and violently. The 1.3 million Iraqi deaths from war-related causes exceeds the worst of Saddam Hussein’s atrocities. As any competent game theory war-planner knew, the strategic winner in this war was certain to be Iran as the U.S. neutralized its key foe—and is now urged by Israel to wage war on Iran.
As the U.S.—the primary target of this deception—emerged in the foreground, the agent provocateur faded into the background. But only after catalyzing dynamics that steadily drained the U.S. of credibility, resources and resolve. This “probabilistic” Israeli victory also ensured widespread cynicism, insecurity, distrust and disillusionment along with a steadily declining capacity to defend our real interests.
Meanwhile the American public came under a system of oversight and surveillance packaged and sold as “homeland security.” This ominously titled operation includes rhetorical echoes of a WWII-era “fatherland” featuring a domestic security force completely alien to U.S. traditions. It is not yet clear whether this new agency was established to protect Americans. Or whether it is meant to shield from Americans those responsible for deceiving us to wage their wars.
In January 2003, Secret Service Agent Richard Sierze interrogated Mel Rockefeller at his home in Fresno, California after he sent an email to Florida Governor Jeb Bush. The email said, in effect, that if the governor’s brother (President George Bush) did not interview him on a public record prior to invading Iraq, he would do his best to ensure that lawful means were deployed to see the president executed for treason by a firing squad.
When questioned by Sierze, Rockefeller offered to have the agent speak with Dr. Glenn Olds, an adviser to four presidents, his senior adviser since 1994 and a former U.N. Ambassador who assisted him in entering Iraq through Jordon at a time when Americans were prohibited from traveling there. Sierze declined.
He also repeated his intent to see the president executed for treason and insisted that he be charged and taken before a federal magistrate to present evidence that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and that an alternative to war had been available since early 1997. Agent Sierze declined his demand to be arraigned in a U.S. Federal District Court—seven weeks before the invasion.
Agent Sierze should be interviewed to see if, in retrospect, he agrees that—had this advice been followed—the war in Iraq may well have been prevented. To date, no one with line responsibility has interviewed Mel Rockefeller on a public record. Why? The answer to that question would reveal those responsible for this ongoing deception.
The victims of these serial deceptions, including the families of those murdered in November at Fort Hood, may have a wrongful death cause of action against those with line responsibility who aided these operations by failing to engage the Rockefeller record in a timely fashion.
By manipulating the shared mindset, skilled game theory war-planners can wage wars on multiple fronts with minimal resources. One proven strategy: Pose as an ally of a well-armed nation predisposed to deploy its military in response to a mass murder.
In this case, the result destabilized Iraq while creating (predictable) crises that could be exploited to greater strategic advantage by expanding the conflict to Iran, another Israeli goal announced in A Clean Break—seven years before the invasion of Iraq.
Today’s mathematically model-able outcomes undermined U.S. national security by discrediting our leadership, degrading our financial condition and disabling our political will. In game theory terms, this devastation was perfectly predictable—within an acceptable range of probabilities.
Pakistan is primed to emerge as the next battleground for game theory war-planners. When India, an ally of Israel, became the nation honored by the Obama administration’s first state dinner, that occasion gave reason for concern due to the dynamics already at work in the background.
In the asymmetry that typifies modern warfare, those who are few in number have no alternative when pursuing an expansionist agenda but to wage their wars by way of deception. To maintain its perceived status as a perennial victim, Israeli aggression must proceed non-transparently. Its only option is to operate with duplicitous means, including leveraging the power of its insider influence to advance an agenda from the shadows.
Thus the strategic necessity that this extremist enclave befriend the U.S.—with the intent to betray that friendship to advance its geopolitical goals. Thus the strategic need to create a relationship of trust with a post-WWII super power—in order to defraud us. How else could Colonial Zionists wage their wars except with our military? How else could Jewish nationalists induce our aggression absent the widely shared belief that Israel is not an aggressor but a victim?
Winning Wars from the Inside Out
Game theory war-planners manipulate the shared mental environment by shaping the perceptions and impressions that become consensus opinions. With a combination of well-timed crises, fixed intelligence and a complicit media, policy-makers can be induced to support a predetermined agenda—not because lawmakers are Evil Doers but because the public mindset has been pre-conditioned to respond to manipulated thoughts, emotions and beliefs.
Without the mass murder of 9-11, would America’s credibility be in tatters and its creditworthiness in jeopardy? By steadily displacing facts with false beliefs, those duplicitous few-within-the-few amplify the impact of their deceit. By their steady focus on the mental environment, game theory war-planners can defeat an opponent with vastly superior resources.
Today’s intelligence wars are waged in plain sight and under the cover of shared beliefs. By manipulating consensus opinion, psy-ops wars can be won from the inside out by inducing a targeted populace to freely choose the very forces that imperil their freedom.
Thus in the Information Age the disproportionate power wielded by those with outsized influence in media, popular culture, think tanks, academia and politics—domains where Zionist influence is pervasive not only in the U.S. but also in other nations induced to war on false pretenses.
Germany offers a case study in manipulation of the public mindset in plain sight and under the banner of a free press. In 2003, Zionist media mogul Haim Saban acquired the second largest media conglomerate in Germany. Why? As Saban investment banker Steve Rattner explained his client’s motivation: “Because Germany is important to Israel.” Or, as Saban concedes: “I have only one issue and that issue is Israel.”
By 2005, Saban had succeeded in electing Angela Merkel as German Chancellor. She quickly became the European Union’s most reliable and forceful advocate for Israel. By November 2009, she was prepared to sponsor in Berlin an unprecedented joint session of the German and Israeli governments. Following his political success in Germany, Saban acquired in 2007 a controlling interest in Univision, a Latino-focused network serving the fastest-growing voting bloc in the U.S.
Media manipulation serves as an essential force-multiplier to wage intelligence wars from the periphery or, as with Haim Saban, in plain sight. At the operational core of such psy-ops are game theory war-planners skilled at personality profiling and masterful at anticipating responses to staged provocations and then incorporating those responses into their arsenal.
In the case of Iraq, our (mathematically) foreseeable response to 9-11 led, in practical effect, to Israel’s deployment of our military to invade Iraq. For aggressors adept at psy-ops warfare, facts are only an inconvenience to be overcome when waging war by way of deception. Thus the key role played by consensus-shapers featured in mainstream media outlets who focus not on informing the public but on mental conditioning.
For targeted populations dependent on facts and informed consent to protect their freedom and preserve the rule of law, such treachery poses the greatest possible threat. Yet even now many Americans believe that Israel is not an aggressor but a victim and even an ally despite facts confirming a multi-decade pattern of expansionist nationalism and geopolitical deception.
Adhering to an Enemy
The U.S. is far less secure than before 9-11. Tel Aviv clearly intends to continue its serial provocations as evidenced by its ongoing expansion of settlements and its continuing blockade of Gaza. Israel has shown no willingness to negotiate in good faith. With few exceptions, Barack Obama has named as senior advisers either Zionists are those known to be strongly pro-Israeli.
The greatest threat to world peace is not Islam. The most fundamental threat that underlies all others is our “special relationship” with a skilled agent provocateur. Without U.S. support for an enclave of nuclear-armed religious extremists, the common source of this threat could long ago have been identified and steps taken to ensure its containment.
In the same way that lengthy pre-staging was required to induce the U.S. to invade Iraq, a similar strategy is now underway to persuade the U.S. to invade Iran or support an attack by Israel. Pakistan is also now on the agenda of those marketing The Clash narrative with its vision of a perpetual war against “militant Islam.” Similar mental conditioning is again at work, including the high profile branding of the requisite Evil Doer: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad.
From its outset, the Zionist enterprise sought supremacy in the Middle East. To date, its alliance with the U.S. has enabled the deployment of American military might in pursuit of goals set by Jewish nationalists more than a half-century before a Christian Zionist U.S. president was induced to extend nation-state recognition. Harry Truman made that fateful decision despite his fears that Israel would become what Zionist lobbyists assured him it would not become—and what it immediately became: a racist and theocratic state.
Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence required to take the U.S. to war in the Middle East while making it appear that Islam—not Israel—is the problem. When a long-deceived American public—especially the U.S. military—grasps the common source of this devastating duplicity, the response will shift the geopolitical landscape. The facts suggest that “sympathy for Israel” is not among the probable reactions.
If Barack Obama continues to cater to these extremists, this Nobel peace laureate can rightly be blamed when the next attack features the usual orgy of evidence pointing to a pre-staged Evil Doer. Should another mass murder occur, that incident may well be traceable to the U.S.-Israeli relationship and to the failure of our policy-makers to protect America—and world peace—from this enemy within.
First published December 1, 2009
The Nobel Committee again piqued the interest of those who marvel at the impact of an annual ritual of global branding that in 1973 labeled Henry Kissinger a peace laureate! As with many aspects of unconventional warfare, what emerges in the foreground often obscures behavior that remains concealed in the background.
Anyone paying attention knows that pro-Israelis manipulated the intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq. That same source is now hoping to expand this war to Iran—without being detected. In an irony of epic proportions, this award may enable that deceit.
Pundits charge that Barack Obama was given the 2009 peace prize for Not Being Bush. The Nobel Committee cited Obama’s multilateralism in contrast to Bush’s unilateralism. Yet the same pro-Israeli networks that deployed phony intelligence to manipulate decision-making in the Bush presidency remain active inside the Obama presidency. At least Bush had the mass murder of 9-11 to rationalize his choices.
The manipulation of consensus beliefs discredited the U.S. when it went to war on fixed intelligence. A similar mental manipulation generated consensus support for trade and financial policies that systematically devastated the U.S. economy. The challenge for Tel Aviv is how best to continue its agenda for Greater Israel now that the manipulation of public opinion has grown more transparent—and when entire communities, reeling from the impact of massive financial frauds, are aware that something fundamental is amiss.
Those consensus-enabled frauds include the savings and loan bust of the 1980s, the dotcom crash of 2000 and the recent subprime mortgage meltdown with its massive bailout of Wall Street’s financial elite. In the mid-1990s, a similar consensus-enabled fraud impoverished tens of millions of Russians while leaving a legacy of oligarchs in its wake.
In a nation whose population, like the U.S., is less than two percent Ashkenazim, six of Russia’s seven richest oligarchs (84%) qualify for Israeli citizenship. Similarly, a list of the top 50 neoconservatives advocating war in Iraq reveals 26 (52%) who are Jewish. Likewise a review of Nobel laureates in economic science confirms that the awards largely honor Ashkenazi “Chicago School” economists.
As financial freedom emerged—by consensus—as a proxy for human freedom, this “Chicago” mindset created oligarchies worldwide, undermining both democracies and markets. The model’s fixation on money, since branded the “Washington” consensus, gained global traction as its advocates were lionized as Nobel laureates—discrediting the U.S. in the process.
Obscuring a Criminal State
Consensus beliefs explain how frauds can progress in plain sight as faith-based psy-ops displace facts with what a targeted public can be deceived to accept as true. Deception works the same regardless whether the fraud is a shared belief in Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or a consensus faith in the infallibility of unfettered financial markets. The only modern aspect of this ancient craft is the technological means to defraud on a global scale.
For consensus frauds to become systemic requires lengthy pre-staging and political cooperation. Once a long-deceived public grasps the duplicity at the heart of this mental and emotional manipulation, they will see for themselves its common source—which brings us to this latest Nobel peace prize.
Though Barack Obama conceded he did not deserve it, that misses the point. The primary national security issue he now faces is what strategy to pursue in the quagmire of Afghanistan. His senior military advisers recommend a troop surge to create the stability required for a drawdown of forces.
Others urge a speedy withdrawal. That strategy would leave in place the forces that will reconstitute the Taliban and provide a haven for Al Qaeda there and in neighboring Pakistan. This peace prize complicates the option to escalate. That may well be its purpose.
A quick withdrawal would also help pre-stage a consensus that the next Evil Doer comes from this region. Plus Afghanistan and Pakistan provide a plausible source of serial crises to deflect attention from resolving Israel’s brutal six-decade occupation of Palestine. Thus the enthusiasm for Obama’s award from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
To date, the U.S. has lost ground in every negotiation with this Israeli leader. The issue of settlements was relegated to background noise. At U.S. urging, the U.N. deferred consideration of the Goldstone Report on Gaza despite facts confirming dozens of Israeli war crimes. By pressuring a Palestinian leader to endorse deferral, U.S. diplomats further undermined the prospects for peace. Meanwhile, Jewish extremists are fueling the hostilities required for a third Intifada.
Branding an Asset
With the expansionist goals of Greater Israel yet to be fulfilled, Tel Aviv needs a U.S. president perceived as a mediator akin to peace laureate Mother Teresa. For a laureate to escalate a war conflicts with the Nobel brand. Obama the Peacemaker can now justify the rapid withdrawal sought by pro-Israelis, his political base and Norwegian peaceniks.
In return, he can be portrayed as heroic—for advancing their agenda. Meanwhile Israel can justify a unilateral preemptive attack on Iran using U.S.-provided bunker-buster bombs, plausibly citing self-defense now that the Peace President is conflicted. That attack will ensure the crises required to help obscure the common source of this systemic criminality. Should the U.S. military object, critics can point to a recent record of dissent on troop strength in Afghanistan and on a policy shift on gays in the military.
Any attack in the U.S. or the E.U. will be blamed on crises in the Middle East, enabling critics to charge that Obama capitulated to Europeans who embrace peace at any price. Though Obama is now being lionized, he will then be demonized. The result will discredit his presidency, endanger the U.S. and pave the way for a more militant successor, a strategic victory for Tel Aviv as the next presidency is likewise staffed with Zionists and pro-Israelis.
Barack Obama is a political product of Chicago Ashkenazim who trace directly to Jewish organized crime of the 1920s. This prize may embolden a trans-generational criminal syndicate for whom peace is an obstacle to the perpetual warfare required to advance Colonial Zionist goals.
This award was announced soon after Obama described Israel as “the Jewish state.” That code phrase outraged Muslims worldwide, particularly those whose lands are occupied by an apartheid government. Only America’s first African-American president could endorse racist policies certain to push the parties closer to war. Instead of being denounced, he was awarded a Nobel peace prize.
This award is welcome news for a global syndicate scrambling to obscure the common source of the manipulated beliefs that induced war in Iraq—and the common source of the consensus beliefs that enabled financial frauds in the U.S., Russia and worldwide.
To a dispirited public looking for hope, has this Chicagoan been positioned to raise those hopes only to dash them? The facts suggest that this inexperienced commander-in-chief has unwittingly allowed his office to be manipulated by those who mean to make a bad situation worse—possibly far worse.
How can any nation trust that U.S. policy is crafted in Washington and not Tel Aviv? Barack Obama could concede that those who produced his political career are the source of this consensus manipulation. Only with that concession will this prize become deserved.
Jeff Gates is author of Guilt By Association, Democracy at Risk and The Ownership Solution. See www.criminalstate.com.