So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists….”
– Manifesto of Anders Behring Breivik
War-making storylines tend to lose their steam. Sustained warfare requires more than just a plausible Evil Doer. A credible narrative is also essential. To remind us who to hate, who better than a murderous Nordic Muslim-hater?
Far-fetched? How many Americans had heard of the Taliban before March 2001 when destruction of the ancient Buddhas at Bamiyan was reported worldwide as a ‘Cultural Holocaust’? Voila! An Evil Doer brand emerged and was soon repackaged as Islamo-fascism.
Six months later, an attack on U.S. soil left little doubt that outraged Americans would be provoked to war. Combine an emotionally wrenching mass murder with manipulated intelligence and an invasion was assured—of Iraq. That miscue required sophisticated pre-staging.
Residents of Washington, DC well recall the sniper attacks that left ten dead during the October 2002 lead-up to a vote on a Senate resolution to invade Iraq sponsored by Jewish Zionist Senator Joe Lieberman. Those well-timed murders ensured a heightened sense of insecurity and helped ratchet up the requisite hatred—to wage war on a nation that played no role in 911.
Remember the Times Square Terrorist? A car belonging to a Muslim was found with two WalMart propane tanks, an alarm clock, a box of fireworks and some fertilizer. When? In May 2010 during the lead-up to a UN vote on a nuclear-free Middle East—opposed by Israel.
To sustain hate requires a sustained stream of plausible reasons to hate. Plus careful maintenance of a ‘generally accepted truth’ that keeps attention focused on a credible threat.
Preparing the Minds
Islamo-phobia was a fresh threat when it first appeared in a 1993 article in Foreign Affairs. Yet it dates from 1990 when Princeton Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis, an avid Zionist, touted “The Roots of Muslim Rage.” By 1996, Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington was ready to publish The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.
With more than 100 nongovernmental organizations promoting The Clash, Americans experienced a seamless segue from an old narrative to a new. Without missing a beat in Pentagon spending, we ended a global Cold War and, by consensus, began a global War on Terrorism.
Huntington argued that cultural and religious identities would emerge as the primary source of conflict. To gain traction, The Clash consensus required a series of events that could be plausibly blamed on Muslim Evil Doers. That was 15 years ago—a long time to sustain a storyline.
With Osama bin Laden dead and war-weary Americans nearing the tenth anniversary of 911, the narrative was losing its punch. Plus the storytellers face a transparency problem: Intelligence agencies worldwide have identified pro-Israelis as the common source of the manipulated intelligence that induced the invasion of Iraq.
What’s a Zionist to do? Answer: look to past successes.
Timing is Essential
Ten days prior to 911, Tel Aviv announced a $1 million grant to Israeli super-spy Jonathan Pollard. Why then? The timing suggests that Israel was signaling its operatives and sayanim (Hebrew for volunteers).
The Norwegian shooter is akin to the narrative-advancing snipers who emerged in the lead-up to the Senate vote authorizing the U.S. military to invade Iraq. In the lead-up to the September UN vote on statehood for Palestine, the carnage in Norway freshened up a stale storyline.
Here’s a tip-off: This latest mass murder was committed on the 65th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel in Tel Aviv. That mass murder was an operation of the Irgun, Zionist-terrorist predecessors to the Likud Party of today’s Benjamin Netanyahu.
The same day that Israel launched its Six-Day War in June 1967, Irgun operative Mathilde Krim was continuing her torrid affair with President Lyndon Johnson—in the White House. Why then? Because that land grab ensured the roots of the Muslim rage required to shape future events.
Why would a Norwegian Zionist kill Norwegians? For the same reason that Irgun Zionist Menachem Begin murdered Jews in the King David Hotel: to advance a narrative.
In September 2000, Likud Prime Minister Ariel Sharon led a provocative march to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount. When, after a year of calm, suicide bombings recommenced, Sharon and Netanyahu warned that only when Americans “feel our pain” would we appreciate their plight. To feel Israel’s pain, they said, would require that America lose 4,500 to 5,000 to terrorism, the initial estimate of those lives lost to a mass murder one year later.
The well-timed operation in Norway turned to mass murder as a means to remake the world order in plain sight. Those complicit specialize in maintaining a storyline that dates from when the medieval Crusades pit Christians against Muslims.
Absent the success of such deceit, we may forget whom to hate.
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.
Since 1913, debt has been the only way that we in the U.S. have known to create money. Choking on debt yet short on money, Americans are reeling from too much monetary theory and too little commonsense.
Those who sold us the theory also ensured recurring recessions. Each debt-induced cycle features rich-get-richer booms followed by debilitating busts. We designed our way into this mess. We can design our way out.
As yet, there’s no sign that policy-makers know a way out. Nor do their advisers. Over the past century, every economist has been educated the same. They are unable to see the real problem because the theory they were taught is the source of the problem.
The U.S. Federal Reserve model of central banking was one of America’s key exports. Every nation now “monetizes” pretty much the same way—with debt.
Good news is on the horizon from major exporting nations. Many of them are Islamic and flush with money. Much of that money originated as debt in industrialized nations.
Those nations are staggering under immense debt. Much of that debt is owed to nations where they must buy oil and gas to fuel their economies and generate funds to…repay debt.
Yet the creditors too are in a bind. Where can they prudently invest their vast pools of debt-backed money? Do they buy more U.S. government debt? Euro bonds? Do they hold their reserves in dollars, euros or pounds sterling—all debt-based?
Invest instead in commodities and they just bid up the price. That may be good news for speculators but it is not a sensible risk management strategy. So what to do? When all else fails, commonsense may yet find its way into this debate.
Tomorrow’s Commodity Today
The safest commodity is one you can control. Look at China’s control over rare earth metals. However control of that sort is a beggar-thy-neighbor approach, akin to investing in precious metals like gold or silver. Such investments miss the point—and the opportunity.
The commodity hedge for the foreseeable future is clean energy, particularly solar power due to its abundance and ease of collection. Clean energy is also what must be monetized—not debt but electrons captured by solar panels and converted to useable energy.
Monetization comes with an implied promise. To maintain value, currencies must be backed by productivity—the capacity to generate real goods and services. Productivity is what makes a financial security truly secure.
Those who designed America’s central banking system assured us that debt-based “monetization” would be backed by real productivity. That thin tether to reality was severed in 1971 when backing for the U.S. dollar shifted from precious metals to a candid slogan now stamped on U.S. currency: “In God We Trust.”
Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan not only trusted Wall Street’s “financial creativity,” he also enabled it with cheap credit. Layer upon layer of cross-collateralized debt produced little more than more money for financial sophisticates. Meanwhile real people living in real communities witnessed the dismantling of the U.S. economy.
Ask around. Would those with commonsense prefer their money secured with debt or with clean energy? Which is more secure?
Those who propose we reform central banking miss the point. Why reform it when, by design, it can gradually be displaced?
Instead of relying solely on debt-backed money, why not also issue asset-backed currencies? Why not complement centralized money with decentralized monies? Instead of one-size-fits-all money, why not tailor currencies to the diverse needs of communities?
Rather than trust in God, why not put your faith in money secured by clean energy?
Total assets in sovereign wealth funds now exceed $8.1 trillion. China has reserves approaching $2.4 trillion. Oil exporters have considerably more including $1 trillion held by the United Arab Emirates and $510 billion by Norway.
As an energy exporter with large currency reserves, Russia is revisiting the wisdom of investing in other countries those funds generated by the sale of its natural resources.
With increasing frequency, political leaders are looking at the global financial crisis as an opportunity to reconsider what they monetize—and for whom. That suggests commonsense may yet find a way.
An alternative is known, available and viable with energy-backed “complementary currencies” designed to operate parallel with national currencies.
Do not expect leadership from the U.S. Those who sold us the current system retain too much control—for now. Their interest lies in more money secured by more debt. Or backed by nothing at all.
Look for this overdue innovation to emerge from cultures long wary of those who collect fixed interest regardless of the debtor’s condition. The Qur’an forbids it as “riba.” The Bible forbids it as “the pound of flesh.”
The source of this common malady is now coming sharply into focus—as is the cure.
The phrase “enemy within” brings to mind the image of a shadowy spy stealing military secrets. That was the case for Israeli master spy Jonathan Pollard jailed for 1980s espionage that compromised U.S. Cold War strategy.
That phrase also describes those involved in a form of psy-ops that is not easily detected because it operates so brazenly. For instance, the well-timed release of diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks displaced reports of Israeli obstinacy in peace talks with reports of a need for war with Iran.
That operation relied on editors at four major newspapers chosen by WikiLeaks to manage the releases. Despite the delight at their impact voiced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, mainstream media failed to mention the possibility of undisclosed bias by those who chose what to release and when.
The bias of The New York Times is well known. Less clear is the role of Ian Katz, Deputy Editor at The Guardian (London) and Executive Editor Sylvie Kauffman at Le Monde in Paris. The geopolitical success of the WikiLeaks operation suggests an enemy within.
Israeli duplicity often operates through what U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates describes as “the people in between.” When waging unconventional warfare, those people are the most dangerous combatants, particularly those operatives in mainstream media.
The People in Between
For systems of governance reliant on informed consent, nothing could be more perilous. The “people in between” routinely target media—freedom’s greatest vulnerability—as a means for displacing facts with what a targeted populace can be deceived to believe.
How old is this duplicity? How long have false beliefs been used to manipulate behavior? Modern technology—particularly media—enables deception on a global scale. Between the American populace and the facts they require to protect their freedom—that’s where this enemy within imbeds its operatives.
The false intelligence claiming Iraqi WMD was a people-in-between operation. Judith Miller at The New York Times fed us a steady diet of front-page news that we now know was fixed around Israeli goals promoted by Ahmad Chalabi, a London-based Iraqi expatriate who, like Israel, sought regime change in Iraq.
Pentagon insider Richard Perle developed Chalabi over two decades. A Jewish Zionist, Perle has long been a strategically well-placed “person in between.” Miller left The Times and joined Fox News and then Newsmax.
Yet the impact of complicit media pales in comparison to the enemy within that brought the U.S. economy to its knees and undermined national security at its financial core.
The most devastating in this chronicle of enemies is the most difficult to see. As with other “in between” operations, this too succeeds by displacing facts with false beliefs. Only in this case, those beliefs were imbedded in education and over decades worked their way into law.
Known as the “Washington Consensus,” this widely shared perspective shapes economic policy worldwide. At the heart of this generally accepted truth is found the belief that money should be accountable only to itself.
In this mindset, financial freedom is an article of faith. Instead of the civil rights refrain, “Let my people go,” its proponents insist: “Let my money go.” Allow money the freedom to work its will worldwide and everything will work out fine.
That shared belief works “in between” in the same way that Jonathan Pollard undermined national security, WikiLeaks shifted attention to Iran and Judith Miller induced us to war in Iraq. Only in this case a false belief has been so thoroughly internalized that it’s difficult to see because this shared mindset has become that with which we have been educated to do our seeing.
A Global Sanhedrin
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are the primary apostles of this consensus faith. The World Trade Organization (WTO) now seeks to take this belief to global scale by enforcing unrestricted free trade not only in goods and services but also financial capital.
The WTO operates like a global Sanhedrin akin to a Jewish high council accountable only to itself. What’s now emerging as a global enemy within is a finance-guided form of transnational governance marketed as free trade but accountable only to itself.
That ‘self’ traces its origins to an internalized mindset in which financial freedom serves, by consensus, as a proxy for personal freedom. That mindset was decades in the making.
This modern-day Mindset Warfare is being waged by an enemy that is truly within. Fast globalizing financial forces now induce us to freely embrace the very forces that undermine our freedom.
By waging war on us from the inside out, the originators of this money-myopic mindset dismantled the U.S. economy, enabled vast financial pillaging and induced us to fiscal ruin.
Those wielding this weaponry operate from our internal shadows as the Zionist entity within.
Three days before Christmas, the U.S. Congress authorized $725 billion in defense spending for 2011. Adjusted for inflation, that’s the most since 1945, the last year of World War II.
With numbers that large, making comparisons is difficult. Yet consider this. The United Nations reports that 1.5 billion people still live without electricity. For less than $100, a solar panel can power a cell phone charger and four high-efficiency LED lights.
At that price, 1.5 billion people could become partially electrified for $150 billion. Defense-wise, which taxpayer outlay offers better long-term security?
With the U.S. humbled in Iraq, mired in Afghanistan and in danger of being drawn into Iran, is it time to replace aggression with development and firepower with solar power?
With extremism the new enemy, what’s our best defense? What if the U.S. projected its power by defending against the indignities of energy poverty and illiteracy?
Absent a strategy for addressing the roots of human indignity, it’s not clear that the war on terrorism can be won. Energy poverty is a war we know how to win.
Parents of children using solar-powered LED lights report how their grades improve when they have light for studying. While that’s not enough, it’s a good start.
Can the U.S. afford not to embrace a solar defense? If not literacy, what is the best long-term defense against extremism? For $12, a solar-powered LED system can power a desk lamp and a phone charger.
As yet, there is no business model for home-scale solar systems scattered across a continent. Large-scale solar projects are far easier to finance. Community-scale is where the Pentagon can play an immediate role.
A New Form of Defense
Women living in the Pashtun area between Pakistan and Afghanistan share similar goals. They want to charge their cell phones, power a few light bulbs and refrigerate their food.
That’s a challenge the Pentagon can meet. Solar panels can handle part of that task though not all. But again, that’s a good start. Widespread access to cell phones is also helpful.
Cell phones are fast becoming a key tool for transferring money in developing countries. Transactions seldom exceed $20. By improving personal communications, they also provide another incentive to electrify in order to recharge the phone.
Phones now feature applications able to facilitate distance education, coordinate testing and track student progress. What would be the impact of literacy and electrification on the long-term need for weapons-based defense spending? Is the enemy terrorism or indignity?
Cold War defense outlays totaled $20 trillion (in 2010 dollars) from 1948 until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The Clinton administration spent roughly $4 trillion. Republican G.W. Bush spent another $4.65 trillion and Democrat Barack Obama is on track to spend $5 trillion. That’s a 63-year bipartisan total of at least $33,650,000,000,000 ($33.65 trillion).
How many educations could that have financed? How many homes electrified? How many schools built? How much poverty eradicated? U.S. defense spending from 1998 through 2011 will total $7.2 trillion. What will we have to show for it?
In Defense of Empathy
Conventional defense strategy assumes we are hard-wired for aggression, violence and a radical self-interest. Yet research suggests we’re soft-wired for sociability, empathy and a drive to belong.
What is the best long-term defense against those who view us as The Other? Answer: a strategy that demonstrates U.S. sincerity in enhancing the capacity of others to flourish. Community is the relevant scale for such an initiative.
Though national governments can help coordinate, the impact must be felt at the level of the family and the neighborhood. Address unmet needs there and the impact will suppress secondary drives such as violence and aggression.
To ensure extremism, fail to address the insecurity of poverty and the vulnerability of illiteracy. An empathy strategy is the missing piece in the national security puzzle.
By demonstrating that America sees others as sojourners rather than enemies, the U.S. prepares the groundwork for lasting peace. To win at The Clash of Civilizations, Americans must show by their conduct how to create a truly empathetic civilization.
You can’t fake it. Either people have electricity or not. Their children can read and write or they cannot. Either commerce is enabled in ways relevant to communities—or not.
While it’s easy to kill, creation requires a long-term commitment. Absent an empathy component, what will change at the end of the next six decades of defense expenditures?
The U.S. can no longer afford $725 billion each year for defense, much of it borrowed. Given the poor return on our investment, it’s clear we need another strategy, one free of Zionist goals that advance behind serial conflicts and the debt incurred to fund them.
We know what to do. What’s required is the leadership to do it.
Over the past two months, Benjamin Netanyahu has mentioned the fate of jailed Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard six times in meetings with President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The Israel lobby also mounted a letter-writing campaign on Pollard’s behalf.
When Pollard was arrested for espionage in the 1980s, Tel Aviv swore he was part of a “rogue” operation. Only 12 years later did Israel concede he was their spy the entire time. That insider espionage by a purported ally damaged U.S. national security more than any incident in U.S. history.
During an earlier term as Prime Minister, Netanyahu secured a verbal agreement from Bill Clinton in 1998 to release Pollard. Clinton then faced a rebellion among U.S. intelligence agencies aware of the damage done. Clinton backed down and Netanyahu backed off.
Pollard took more than one million documents for copying by his Israeli handler. When transferred to the Soviets, reportedly in exchange for the emigration of Russian Jews, that stolen intelligence shifted the underlying dynamics of the Cold War.
What has its entangled alliance with Israel cost the U.S.? The U.S. committed $20 trillion to Cold War defense from 1948-1989 (in 2010 dollars). Pollard negated much of that outlay yet even now Israel pretends to be an ally. Few believe it; many realize the U.S. has been played for a fool.
The timing could be a Christmas season plea for clemency after 25 years of imprisonment. Former Assistant Secretary of State Lawrence Kolb now claims the sentence was excessive due to a personal distaste for Israel by then Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger.
At trial, Pollard claimed he wasn’t stealing from the U.S.; he was stealing secrets for Israel—with whom the U.S. has a “special relationship.” Aware of the harm done by Pollard during the Reagan-era defense buildup, Weinberger pressed for a longer sentence than the prosecution.
From 1981-1985, this U.S. Navy intelligence analyst provided Israel with 360 cubic feet of classified military documents on Soviet arms shipments, Pakistani nuclear weapons, Libyan air defense systems and other intelligence sought by Tel Aviv to advance its geopolitical agenda.
Even while in prison, Pollard’s iconic status among pro-Israelis may have played a strategic role. Or was it just coincidence that Tel Aviv announced a $1 million grant to their master spy ten days before 911? Is that how Israel signals its operatives in the U.S.?
Could that explain the timing of Israel’s latest announcement? Could this news flurry be a signal to pro-Israeli volunteers (sayanim in Hebrew) that another operation is underway?
Timing is Everything
Tel Aviv routinely schedules its operations during political “downtime” in the U.S. The Suez crisis was scheduled for the last week of President Eisenhower’s 1956 reelection campaign. Fast forward to 2008 and Israeli troops invaded Gaza just after Christmas, killing 1,400 Palestinians before exiting just prior to the Obama inaugural.
That well-timed provocation generated more outrage at the U.S. as Israel’s reliable enabler. The carnage also catalyzed reactions worldwide that undermined peace talks
This latest news about Pollard coincides with another political downtime. The U.S. Congress has adjourned and the White House has shut down for the holidays. Plus WikiLeaks successfully removed peace talks from the news and restored talk of war with Iran.
If there is another “incident” in the U.S. or the E.U., will the evidence point to Tehran? Islamabad? Damascus? If the U.S. cannot be persuaded to invade Iran, can it be provoked to do so? Stay tuned.
Tel Aviv may be growing desperate and for good reason. Israel and pro-Israelis were the source of the fixed intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq in response to the provocation of 911. Those facts are well known to intelligence agencies worldwide.
As with Pollard, Tel Aviv denies it.
With Pollard back in the news, anything is possible. Recall how long it took for a confession that he was an Israeli spy. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Tel Aviv to concede its role in provoking its primary ally to pursue a Zionist agenda in the Middle East.
Absent the mass murder of 911, would the U.S. now find itself at war in the Middle East? Absent another provocation, Americans are not inclined to expand these wars. At least not yet.
“I know what America is,” Benjamin Netanyahu assured a group of Israelis in 2001, apparently not knowing his words were being recorded. “America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.”
Pollard has long been a rallying point for Jewish nationalists, Zionist extremists and ultra-orthodox ideologues. Only time will tell why he is back in the news. And whether this news is a means for moving the U.S. in the right direction.
Those tracking the agenda now advancing behind the WikiLeaks façade should check for the undisclosed bias among editors at the four newspapers chosen to select what was leaked. And when it was leaked.
The pro-Israeli bias of The New York Times needs no citations. In London, WikiLeaks releases are overseen by Deputy Editor Ian Katz at The Guardian. What about Le Monde in Paris and Der Spiegel in Berlin?
The tipping point for German media dates to 2003 when Haim Saban purchased ProSiebenSat1, Germany’s second largest media conglomerate. Why this particular acquisition? Because “Germany is critical to Israel” conceded Steve Rattner, Saban’s investment banker—now under indictment in New York for fraud.
Saban’s support was key to putting Angela Merkel in office in 2005. Thus Netanyahu’s comment on November 29th about Germany becoming Israel’s new ‘partner for peace’ in the Middle East—while Tel Aviv collapsed U.S.-sponsored peace talks.
On December 10th, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chose the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution in Washington to announce the end of this latest charade of talks.
Saban has long been close to the Clintons. Ex-President Bill Clinton helped him sell advertising. Though Saban paid for the building now housing the Democratic National Committee, he is doubtless thrilled that Republican Congressman Eric Cantor, a Jewish-Zionist, will take the reins in January as House Majority Leader.
Both political parties are critical to Israel.
Entropy — Again
The collapse of peace talks marked the success of yet another Israeli entropy strategy. When negotiating with Zionists, the relevant question is always: What’s Next From Israel: Entropy or Outrage? Take your pick: perpetual delay or another well-timed provocation. Or both.
In 2007, Saban, a self-described Zionist, acquired control of Univision, the most popular U.S. media outlet for Latinos. As America’s fastest-growing voting bloc, their support is also critical to Israel. This latest acquisition confirms the systematic imbedding of pro-Israeli influence in opinion-shaping domains, including media, think tanks and politics.
Israel is waging war on the U.S. by way of deception. That strategy can only succeed if this war is waged in plain sight by its adept game theory war planners.
Tel Aviv’s agenda requires a critical mass of control over key “in between” domains — between “the mark” (that’s us) and the facts that We The People require for a system of governance reliant on our informed consent.
The modus operandi on display at every turn: displacement of facts with false beliefs.
Thus the role of media, think tanks and pro-Israeli policy-makers in selling Americans on consensus beliefs around Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories and Iraqi uranium from Niger. All were false yet all were widely believed.
The entirety of the phony intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq is traceable to Israeli or pro-Israeli sources. The invasion was marketed to a trusting American public by a mainstream media dominated by those sharing the same undisclosed bias.
In the Information Age, if that’s not treason, what is?
With Friends Like This….
When in human history were fabricated beliefs first deployed to deceive? At the heart of this ancient craft one finds proponents of the oldest of the three “religions of the book” promoting a “Clash” between its two derivatives: Christianity and Islam.
Displacement is the key to this mental and emotional manipulation. Within hours of WikiLeak’s November release of diplomatic cables, peace talks were displaced by renewed talk of war with Iran. WikiLeaks concedes it had those cables since May.
Barack Obama has no better grasp of this long-running treachery than George Bush, Bill Clinton, G.H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Coolidge, Harding or Wilson.
Only with clarity on the common source of this duplicity can a long-deceived global public ensure accountability for the many conflicts engineered by those skilled at pitting two sides against the middle while profiting off the misery of both.
By wielding their influence in key in-between domains, those complicit prey on the good faith of others. We Americans will remain unwitting players in a fabricated drama (The Clash of Civilizations) so long as we believe a narrative sustained in plain sight by those skilled at deception.
To betray, one must first befriend; to deceive, one must first create a relationship of trust. No one can persuade Americans to forfeit their freedom. We must be induced to freely embrace the forces that, step-by-step, displace our freedom. That’s called Zionism.
To restore the true self to self-governance requires that Americans recover enough self-confidence to follow facts wherever they may lead. And trust in themselves enough to act consistent with those facts — despite what those complicit would deceive them to believe.
Our freedom now depends on it.
The scope and scale of WikiLeaks is a marvel to behold. Some praise it as the ultimate form of democracy. Others as the epitome of the most sacred of liberty’s principles: the right to know.
Yet the real story here is not what’s revealed but what’s withheld. The marvel is not what we now know but what is already known that is left unsaid. And what’s given an interpretive spin by those newspapers granted priority access.
The facts suggest that WikiLeaks is less about the right to know than the right to deceive.
Take for example the release of diplomatic cables on the August 2008 war between Georgia and Russia and the interpretative gloss given by The New York Times.
Ashkenazi General David Kezerashvili returned to Georgia from Tel Aviv to lead an assault on separatists in South Ossetia with the support of Israeli arms and Israeli training. That crisis reignited Cold War tensions between the U.S. and Russia.
Then as now, it appeared there was a possibility of resolving Israel’s six-decade occupation of Palestine. At that time, The Quartet was coordinating the peace-making efforts of Russia and the U.S. along with the European Union and the United Nations.
Tel Aviv was not pleased.
Then as now, efforts to broker a peace were thwarted by creating a crisis within a coalition of those willing to invest their geopolitical capital to end a conflict that has long served its Zionist purpose as a source of other conflicts.
The resulting rift between the U.S. and Russia ensured some well-timed entropy and reduced the possibility of ending a decades-long occupation. Then as now, that occupation must end to bring peace to the region.
The Sound of Silence
Without that broader context, it’s not possible to isolate the motivation for that well-timed war. Yet the cables released by WikiLeaks say nothing about that. Nor does The New York Times.
Nor do the cables mention Tel Aviv’s interest in a pipeline across Georgia meant to move Caspian oil through Turkey and on to Eurasia, using Israel as a fee-collecting intermediary.
As with so much that is left “un-leaked,” the silence is telling.
What is leaked is accurately reported: “Official Georgian versions of events were passed to Washington largely unchallenged.” Yet The Times says nothing about the undisclosed bias motivating that behavior. That silence is deceptive.
Instead Times reporter C.J. Chivers notes only that the bombardments by Georgia of South Ossetia “plunged Georgia into war, pitting the West against Russia in a standoff over both Russian military actions and the behavior of a small nation that the United States had helped arm and train.”
Now as then, there’s no mention in the paper of record of the role played by an Ashkenazi general, the Israeli training of Georgian troops or the arms and equipment that Israel provided.
Tel Aviv must be pleased.
The Greatest Threat to Peace
The Times notes “the reliance on one-sided information” as Georgian President Saakashvili told the U.S. Ambassador “the Russians are out to take over Georgia and install a new regime.”
After the Russian Army dealt the Israeli-trained Georgians a quick defeat, President George W. Bush, as the U.S. economy was sliding into a recession, announced a $1 billion aid package to help Georgia rebuild. Rest assured those funds were borrowed.
In the netherworld where Colonial Zionists excel in catalyzing well-timed crises and generating interest-bearing debt, WikiLeaks has already achieved iconic status. Much as The Quartet faded into memory, the peace talks that showed promise just last week have been displaced by talk of yet another crisis—with Iran.
For those skilled at gaining traction for a storyline and then advancing a narrative, WikiLeaks is akin to a script doctor. With The Clash of Civilizations losing traction, this latest crisis helped put it back on track.
Only time will tell if this traction suffices to take the “coalition of the willing” from Iraq and Afghanistan into Iran. Occasionally those played for the fool turn their attention to the deceiver. An October 2003 poll of 7,500 respondents in the European Union found that Israel was considered the greatest threat to world peace.
The U.S. military is not without considerable knowledge confirming the common source of the fixed intelligence that induced America to invade Iraq.
With the Israel lobby seeking to induce the U.S. into Iran, events may take an unprecedented turn. A coalition of the willing might well be persuaded to secure Palestine along its 1967 borders with troops deployed to protect Jerusalem as a site of significance to three major faith traditions.
Should the U.S. Commander-in-Chief decide to earn his Nobel peace prize, he may order U.S. troops to secure the only known nuclear arsenal in the Middle East.
Tel Aviv will not be pleased.
The U.S. is under attack by an enemy within. Skilled at game theory warfare, this foe targets the most sensitive realm of U.S. national security: its relations with other nations.
The online publication of a quarter-million documents chronicling diplomatic exchanges is notable both for what’s omitted and what’s included. To determine whether this latest release was a form of espionage, analysts need only examine how this treasure trove of trivia was peppered with documents certain to damage U.S. relations.
To identify its origins, analysts must answer a key question: Cui Bono? To whose benefit?
One clue: the release of degrading and insulting language about Turkish leaders soon after they insisted in late October that the U.S. no longer share Turkish intelligence with Tel Aviv.
That request from a valued ally marks a critical step in isolating Israel by requiring that the U.S. shut down Israeli operations inside its 16 intelligence agencies, the White House and the Intelligence Committees in both the House and Senate. Tel Aviv was not pleased.
Turks remain outraged at the lack of accountability for the execution-style killing by Israel Defense Forces of nine Turkish citizens aboard a humanitarian ship that was boarded in international waters while sailing to Gaza with provisions to relieve an Israeli siege.
Was this release a tit-for-tat, Tel Aviv style? Is WikiLeaks the visible face of an Israeli disinformation campaign? Whose interests were served by disrupting U.S.-Turkish relations?
Intent is Determinative
A leak on this scale is only a leak if it is a random data dump. If items were purposely included or excluded based on their intended effect, it’s an intelligence operation. Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski points out how this release is “seeded” with information that is “surprisingly pointed.”
Take for example the cables indicating that Chinese leaders are inclined to cooperate with the U.S. in reunifying North and South Korea under the leadership of the south. That information was guaranteed to embarrass China’s leaders, damage U.S. relations with Beijing and make reunification more difficult.
From a game theory perspective, that damaging result was fully foreseeable. With the U.S. economy teetering on a meltdown, the creation of a rift with America’s largest trading partner was also an assault on the economic strength required for the U.S. to sustain a viable defense.
Similarly, the pointed references to Arab leaders were destined to weaken their political credibility at home while complicating relations abroad. By exposing Arab displeasure with Iran, this operation also sharpened the divide between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, a source of ongoing tensions and a key barrier to forming a viable government in Iraq.
The effect was certain to complicate U.S. disengagement and raise America’s costs in both blood and treasure.
The cables involving Saudi leaders were released soon after Washington agreed to allow Riyadh to purchase $60 billion in U.S. aircraft and armaments over a multi-year period. Tel Aviv was not pleased.
By targeting the credibility of both Saudi Arabia and the U.S., this operation targeted the two nations pressing hardest for an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
Transparency is the Biggest Threat
Has Tel Aviv panicked? After more than six decades of nonstop provocations while routinely portraying itself as the perennial victim, has Israel’s storyline lost traction?
Zionism faces an existential threat though not from Iran or those Tel Aviv portrays as “Islamo-fascists.” The threat lurks in the fast-emerging transparency that confirms pro-Israelis as the source of the intelligence that took the U.S. to war on false premises.
A critical mass of disinformation persuaded the U.S. to wage war in pursuit of an agenda long sought by Zionist extremists.
Steve Rosen, a former employee of the Israel lobby, has promised to testify on the lobby’s routine receipt of classified U.S. intelligence. Is this massive release of classified materials meant to make the lobby’s intelligence-gathering operation appear routine?
What’s included in the WikiLeaks release is pointed. What’s excluded is even more so: the lack of facts chronicling the role that Israel has long played in undermining U.S. interests.
Israel has escaped accountability for more than six decades. Was the WikiLeaks release “seeded” to discredit the U.S. at this time-critical juncture? The evidence suggests that what we see is not a data dump but a disinformation operation.
Last week, Israeli resistance to a peace plan was front-page news. This week the news is all about war with Iran. The Jerusalem Post immediately crowed that WikiLeaks “vindicated Israel” by citing Arab leaders’ concerns about Iran.
These latest releases even enabled Tel Aviv to suggest that if U.S. intelligence was flawed on a nuclear-armed North Korea, how can anyone trust America to contain a nuclear Iran?
To whom should this release be attributed? Who benefitted?
“The United States is the real victim of WikiLeaks. It’s an action aimed at discrediting them.” Franco Frattini, Foreign Minister of Italy
The impact of the WikiLeaks release of diplomatic cables fits the behavior profile of those well versed in game theory warfare.
When Israeli mathematician Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in economic science for his work on game theory, he conceded, “the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel” has turned “Israel into the leading authority in this field.”
The candor of this Israeli-American offered a rare insight into an enclave long known for waging war from the shadows. Israel’s most notable success to date was “fixing” the intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq in pursuit of a geopolitical agenda long sought by Tel Aviv
When waging intelligence wars, timing is often the critical factor for game-theory war planners. The outcome of the WikiLeaks release suggests a psy-ops directed at the U.S.
Why now? Tel Aviv was feeling pressure to end its six-decade occupation of Palestine. With this release, its foot-dragging on the peace process was displaced with talk of an attack on Iran.
While the U.S. bore the brunt of the damage, the target was global public opinion. To maintain the plausibility of The Clash of Civilizations, a focus must be maintained on Iran as a credible Evil Doer.
With fast-emerging transparency, Israel and pro-Israelis have been identified as the source of the intelligence that took coalition forces to war in Iraq. Thus the need to shift attention off Tel Aviv.
WikiLeaks may yet succeed in that mission.
Game theory war planning aims to create outcomes that are predictable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. That’s why Israeli war planners focus on gaining traction for a plausible narrative and then advancing that storyline step by gradual step.
For the Zionist state to succeed with its expansionist agenda, Iran must remain at center stage as an essential villain in a geopolitical morality play pitting the West against Islamo Fascists.
To displace facts with false beliefs—as with belief in the intelligence that induced the invasion of Iraq—momentum must be maintained for the storyline. Lose the plot (The Clash) and peace might break out. And those deceived may identify the deceiver.
Thus the timing of this latest WikiLeaks release. Its goal: to have us believe that it is not Tel Aviv but Washington that is the forefront of geopolitical duplicity and a source of Evil Doing.
Intelligence wars rely on mathematical models to anticipate the response of those targeted. With game theory algorithms, reactions become foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities.
Control enough of the variables and outcomes become a mathematical inevitability.
The WikiLeaks Motive
Was the reaction to this latest WikiLeaks foreseeable? With exquisite timing, the U.S. was discredited with an array of revelations that called into question U.S. motives and put in jeopardy U.S. relations worldwide.
As the Italian Foreign Minister summarized: “The news released by WikiLeaks will change diplomatic relations between countries.”
The hard-earned trust of the Pakistanis disappeared overnight. Attempts to engage Iran were set back. The overall effect advanced The Clash storyline. If Washington could so badly misread North Korean intentions, then why is the U.S. to be trusted when it comes to a nuclear Iran?
This Wiki-catalyzed storyline pushed Israel off the front page in favor of Iran.
Even U.S. detainees at Guantanamo are again at issue, reigniting that shameful spectacle as a provocation for extremism and terror. U.S. diplomats will now be suspected of spying and lying. What nation can now trust Americans to maintain confidences?
In short, the risks increased for everyone.
Should Israel launch an attack on Iran, Tel Aviv can cite WikiLeaks as its rationale. Though an attack would be calamitous from a human, economic and financial perspective, even that foreseeable outcome would be dwarfed by the enduring hatred that would ensue.
That too is foreseeable—from a game theory perspective of those marketing The Clash.
The effect of the U.S. invasion of Iraq was predictable. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia foresaw it, noting simply that the U.S. invasion would “give Iraq to Iran as a gift on a golden platter.”
With the elimination of Sunni leader Saddam Hussein, the numerically dominant Shiites of Iraq were drawn into the political orbit of the Shiite-dominant Iran.
Game theorists focus their manipulation of affairs on their control of key variables. Then events take on a life all their own. The impact of this discrediting release was wide-ranging and fully foreseeable.
A Mossad case officer explained Israel’s success at waging war by way of deception: “Once the orchestra starts to play, we just hum along.”
These, after all, are the leading authorities in the field.