Pakistan Taliban

Watching Israel Delegitimize the U.S.

What’s behind the sudden crisis in Korea? Who benefits?

Which nation’s nuclear arsenal is problematic?

The U.S.-Israeli relationship has long been America’s Achilles heel. Our first president warned against “entangled alliances” particularly when, as here, there’s a “passionate attachment.”

Our “special relationship” with this rogue state has placed the U.S. outside the same system of international law that we now seek to impose on others, including Iran.

Our handling of the current crisis on the Korean peninsula could restore our tattered reputation.

What’s the first issue that needs to be addressed?

Here’s where you the reader may well ask: “Do you mean the issue concerning the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center?” No, but nor is that question irrelevant to this latest crisis.

Here’s the second issue that must be addressed: to which nations has Israel transferred nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology? Is North Korea on the list?

That issue became relevant with the release of The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa. Archival research by author Sasha Polakowsky-Suransky uncovered “top secret” minutes of a military agreement signed in April 1975 between Shimon Peres, now president of Israel, and South Africa’s defense minister P.W. Botha.

Though Israel denies the conclusions reached by reporters for The Guardian (U.K.), the agreement suggests an offer of nuclear weapons while its Apartheid regime was under international sanctions.

Israel was then building a surrogate arms industry in South Africa using what was, in practical effect, slave labor. That industry has since moved to Israel where it employs “guest workers.” Peres was responsible for building Israel’s nuclear program with help from France in the 1950s.

Some weeks before the offer, Israel and South Africa signed a covert agreement (code name Secment) governing their military alliance. In the subsequent meetings, “correct payload” was used to describe the nuclear warheads Israel would provide for a Jericho missile system. As The Guardian explained:

“The use of a euphemism, the ‘correct payload’, reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons… the only payload the South Africans would have needed to obtain from Israel was nuclear. The South Africans were capable of putting together other warheads.”

South Africa did not go ahead with the deal it was offered though it did develop its own nuclear weapons, possibly with Israeli assistance. The Apartheid government revealed the program to Nelson Mandela when he became president.

In 1986, nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu revealed Israel’s nuclear weapons program to the Sunday Times (London). Vanunu was kidnapped by Mossad agents in Rome and returned for trial in Israel. Sentenced to 18 years, he served 11 years in solitary confinement. On May 23^rd, he was sentenced to another three months in prison for breaking the terms of his release by having unauthorized meetings with foreigners.

Evil Doers vs. Evil Doing

Even now Israel strives against all odds to maintain “ambiguity” about its nuclear weapons. But how can you offer nuclear weapons you don’t have?

Who provided nuclear technology to North Korea? That backward state, now nuclear-armed, was included in G.W. Bush’s post-911 “Axis of Evil” speech. Care to guess who wrote that speech?

Shortly thereafter the U.S. invaded Iraq to remove an Evil Doer. Only later did we learn that our “flawed” intelligence was “fixed” around a goal long sought by Israel as chronicled in A Clean Break, a strategy document written for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by a team of Israeli-Americans led by Richard Perle.

In 2001, Perle became chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Review Board.

The United Nations has long been scheduled to review the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to consider the creation of a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. As the date approached, the world community experienced a well-timed torpedo attack on a South Korean warship, reportedly by a North Korean submarine.

In the midst of these negotiations, mainstream media has been flooding the national consciousness with power-of-association stories about Iran, its nuclear program and even its links to North Korea. Tehran, of course, was the third member in the trio of Bush-era Evil Doers.

News outlets controlled by Israeli-American Rupert Murdoch are particularly active, including Fox News and The Wall Street Journal.

Is it true that Tel Aviv transferred to Pyongyang a German-made submarine? If so, does that qualify as evil doing?

Perhaps here is a good place to pose an out-of-sequence question: What about the collapse of Building 7?

Master Myth Makers

Does Israel routinely transfer war materiél to nations subject to international sanctions?

That would help explain their status as the world’s third largest arms exporter. The U.S. holds first place with Russia second. Israel and France vie for third and fourth trailed by the U.K. and China in the Dirty Half Dozen.

If Israel has an extensive arsenal of nuclear weapons, why does the U.S not insist on inspections?

How does U.S. protection of Israel’s illegal conduct advance U.S. interests?

How is our conduct consistent with the behavior we are now pressing on Iran?

What is so valuable about the U.S.-Israeli relationship that we should sacrifice our credibility to cover-up violations of international law that make us appear guilty by association?

By law isn’t the U.S. obliged to support U.N. sanctions for Israel?

Why discredit the U.S. and undermine the stature of the United Nations? Wasn’t the U.N. the post-WWII organization founded in large part by the U.S. to discourage just such behavior?

Serial Provocations and Murderous Misdirection

Instead of sanctions, what do we see instead? Misdirection and intimidation.

The Internet is awash with Men in Black accounts featuring the usual array of conspiracies. Elvis may yet be blamed for a Korean peninsula incident that could ignite a nuclear war in the region.

How long before we see a story blaming Hezbollah terrorists led by the Pakistan Taliban aboard an Iranian submarine advised by Syrian nuclear scientists and Palestinian strategists?

Or aliens.

The stage has been set for another 911, possibly featuring a nuclear incident. A series of “plausible” Evil Doers have been prominently featured in assorted “terrorist incidents.”

Enough pre-staging has been done that Americans again feel insecure following the media coverage given the Ft. Hood shooting, the Christmas Day Bomber and now the Times Square Terrorist.

One small problem: none of these storylines hold up under close scrutiny. But then that’s not the point. Neither did the “intelligence” on which we relied to wage war in Iraq in response to the provocation of 911. It didn’t need to be true, just believable.

Time to Redo the Report

Anyone of substance associated with the report of the 911 Commission knows we still need a good faith investigation. Mainstream Europeans routinely call for it. Those demands are routinely couched in code due to the perils facing those in the EU who question our “special relationship.”

Instead, commentators ask about the “collapse” of Building 7. Good question. Also a fair question. The answer could lead somewhere useful. Therefore, don’t ask, don’t tell.

This entangled alliance has been an exercise in deceit since a Christian-Zionist president, a Democrat, was induced to extend recognition to an enclave of extremists.

Harry Truman dismissed the concerns of the Joint Chiefs who warned him about their “fanatical concepts” and their plans for “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.”

We were deceived by our own better nature to embrace a relationship that has long been at odds with our national interest. The durability of the relationship has long failed to pass muster as either rational or consistent with our values. The relationship has changed for the worse who we are as a nation.

Yet somehow the relationship endures. Along with the perceived legitimacy of this “state.”

Deception and Self-Deceit

Its persistence can be traced to the strength of a lobby that, to date, has escaped registration as a foreign agent. Those known for their skill at waging war “by way of deception” have routinely betrayed the nation that first befriended and most reliably defended them.

Even when a Christian-Zionist president, a Republican, led us to war on fixed intelligence, we were unable to identity the common source of our troubles. Some blamed G.W Bush. Others now blame Barack Obama. Both critiques miss the point. This treachery is now systemic and thoroughly imbedded in both political parties.

Even now, an undisclosed media bias blocks Americans from the facts they require to make an informed choice about this relationship. And about the legitimacy of a transnational operation that murders with impunity (as in Dubai) and provokes with pleasure—anywhere they please.

Americans are now emerging from many quarters to resist the influence wielded on (and from within) our government by special interests. This special relationship often tops the list.

Many supporters of Israel have been deceived to believe that this relationship is in their best interest. The facts confirm otherwise. Like the nation itself, they too were “the mark” in this long-running fraud.

We have been seduced by those masterful at deceit to freely embrace the very forces that delegitimized us as a nation and collapsed our economy from within.

Which brings me back to the question: what about Building 7?

Pakistan Taliban

Is the Time Square Terrorist more Field-Based Warfare?

In March 2001, Indonesian Intelligence Chief Arie Kumaat asked American James M. (“Mel”) Rockefeller to assess the Taliban’s destruction of the two ancient Buddhas of Bamyan carved into a sandstone cliff in central Afghanistan 140 miles northwest of Kabul.

Familiar with psychological operations (psy-ops) that involve lengthy pre-staging, Kumaat inquired of Rockefeller in Jakarta why that incident occurred at that time and place.

Kumaat also noted the curious timing of two other operations: (a) a Defense minister in India had recently been caught in a bribery scandal involving an Israeli company, and (b) that same Israeli firm attempted to bribe the Malaysian Defense Minister.

Six months prior to 911, the motivation for the Bamyan incident was difficult to discern. In hindsight, we now know that high profile event branded the Taliban globally as Evil Doers.

What about the briberies? The amounts involved were too small, Rockefeller suggested, to constitute real bribes. Rather, both were attempts to change key personnel though it was not yet clear to what end. Since 911, the reason for the timing of those Israeli operations comes more clearly into focus.

In national security parlance, the dynamiting of the Buddhas “prepared the mind” of a global public for whom the Taliban remained an obscurity until their extremism was branded by that well timed event. The briberies will be addressed in a subsequent analysis. Suffice it to say that both involved the pre-staging of “out-of-theater” operations.

By Way of Deception

For those skilled at Information Age warfare, the relevant battlefield is the public’s shared field of consciousness. In that intangible realm, the power of association is routinely deployed to create lasting impressions as a means of mental manipulation.

In preparing that ‘field’ for an emerging narrative, mainstream media depicted the incident at Bamyan as a “cultural Holocaust.” Akin to the casting of a movie, by September 11, 2001, the intolerant Taliban had already been cast as a credible enemy of liberal democracies.

When the reaction to 911 triggered a global search for a plausible Evil Doer, the narrative quickly became a morality play with the U.S. pitted against extremists who hate our values.

As a nation, we segued seamlessly from a global Cold War—against those who hate our values to a Global War on Terrorism—against those who hate our values.

The violence inflicted on the peaceful Buddhas of Bamyan also brought Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar onto the battlefield of consciousness—where he remains.

In the unfolding of this storyline, Omar became the oft-featured Epitome of Evil, akin to a Muslim Darth Vader from Star Wars films. Or Saddam Hussein in the lead-up to war in Iraq.

Best Story Wins

This brief overview of “field-based warfare” brings us to the latest incident in New York again featuring in a starring role Mullah Omar as leader of the “Pakistan Taliban.”

But first a brief review of three recent events.

Keep in mind that when waging game theory warfare, it is not the incident but the reaction that advances the narrative. The cascade of reactions to an incident is what gains traction for a storyline when manipulating minds in that “field.” See: Can the U.S. Beat Israel at Their Game?

The first incident was the December 2007 murder of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Mark Siegel, her Ashkenazim biographer and lobbyist, assured U.S. Secretary of State Condi Rice that the return to Pakistan of the corrupt but widely popular Bhutto was “the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact.”

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf had announced that an end to Israel’s occupation of Palestine was critical to end the conflicts in Iraq and neighboring Afghanistan. That comment made him a target of those for whom that occupation has long served a strategic purpose.

Bhutto’s death was blamed on the Pakistan Taliban. The reaction resulted in the replacement of Musharraf with Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto’s notoriously corrupt husband. By our alliance with Zardari, the U.S. could be cast as extending its corrupting influence in the region. See: What is Israel’s Role in the Destabilization of Pakistan?; Israel’s Role in Terrorism

In August 2008, 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 training. That out-of-theater 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 Israel-Palestine conflict. Russia was then negotiating an energy agreement with Iran.

The incident in Georgia was the second of three prepare-the-mind events. Third was “India’s 911” in November 2008 when extremists recruited from the tribal regions of western Pakistan killed 173 and wounded more than 300 in Mumbai, India’s financial center.

The attack included a hostel run by Chabad Lubavitch, an ultra-orthodox Jewish sect from New York. In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni announced: “Our world is under attack.”

Livni then 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 indicted.

By standing “shoulder to shoulder” with India (the signature phrase of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon), Tel Aviv associated India with Israel’s victim status.

The response to that attack drew Pakistani troops to its eastern border with India. That reaction left its Western tribal regions less well guarded and thereby plausibly more susceptible to extremist infiltrators from Afghanistan joining the Pakistan Taliban.

By May 2009, Israel had delivered to India its first of three Phalcon Airborne Warning & Control Systems (AWACS). That arms sale shifted the balance of conventional air power in the region. That military alliance also confirmed what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced: “Our ties with India don’t have any limitation….” See: The India/Israel Alliance

Whose Pakistan Taliban?

Now let’s turn to the latest incident—also attributed to the Pakistan Taliban. Keep in mind that when waging war on the battlefield of the public’s shared mind space, the power of association is routinely deployed as a form of weaponry.

The “Times Square terrorist” incident occurred at 6:30 pm on May 1^st. That same day, reports emerged from London that more than 3,000 European Jews, including prominent intellectuals, had signed a petition speaking out against Israeli settlement policies and warning that systematic support for the Israeli government is dangerous.

That statement garnered high praise from those aware of how peace in the Middle East has long been kept beyond reach by Israeli agent provocateurs. Serial provocations around the settlements issue have long been a reliable catalyst for well-timed outrage that, in turn, is cited to again defer resolution of a six-decade conflict. See: What Next for Israel: Entropy or Outrage?

Bernard-Henri Levy, a high-profile French writer, led that European effort. That development appeared quite positive when first announced. Then Levy began to appear as a commentator on television following the “Times Square Terrorism” as that incident was portrayed on the cover of Newsweek, a Washington Post magazine.

Rather than promote the petition and the urgent need to solve the settlements issue, instead Levy offered his appraisal of the Times Square incident. He described in depth how he studied what went on “inside the mind” of a Muslim Evil Doer who in 2002 slit the throat and then beheaded an American-Jewish reporter for The Wall Street Journal.

The Levy analysis injected into the “field” the most visually provocative image of the War on Terrorism featuring the epitome of both violence and extremist intolerance. Levy’s well-timed on-camera recitation refreshed in the public mindset the disturbing imagery of a Muslim Evil Doer who brutally murdered and dismembered a young professional with a pregnant wife.

Levy’s described for the television viewer the mental state of the psychopathic Muslim profiled in his book Who Killed Danny Pearl? Where did this evil doing occur? In Pakistan.

Is U.S. Foreign Policy Shaped from the Shadows?

As Levy’s account was injected into the field at the same time as the Time Square Bomber, the U.N. Security Council then had under review a 15-year old proposal for a treaty that would create a Middle East free of nuclear weapons.

The timing of these developments could be coincidental. Yet consider another possibility.

Assume your numbers are few but your ambitions vast. The confirmed facts point to the manipulation of U.S. foreign policy from the shadows with phony intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq in pursuit of a Muslim Evil Doer that had nothing to do with that incident. Is it possible that this latest incident had a strategic purpose that is not yet clear to the public?

If, as the facts suggest, advisers to President Barack Obama are advancing a pro-Israeli agenda, could the timing of this incident be a means to exert influence from outside the White House?

Could that be because their influence inside the White House has become apparent? See: Will Israel Assassinate Barack Obama?

The facts suggest that Obama, as U.S. commander-in-chief, is feeling pressure from the military to change our policy on Israel. Did the timing of these “out of theatre” events help finesse that issue by refreshing a storyline that calls for the U.S. to lead a Global War on Terrorism?

Was this latest incident timed to provide a rationale with which our policy-makers can preempt Pentagon concerns about the effect of U.S.-Israeli policy on our troops in the field? Note the military concerns described in Foreign Policy: The Petraeus Briefing – Israel Endangering U.S. Troops

How long ago would pro-Israeli White House insiders have known about the pending U.N. Security Council consideration of a treaty that could force Israel to forfeit its nuclear weapons? When was the Times Square Terrorist recruited by the “Pakistan Taliban”?

Is this how a war-making narrative is sustained, using well-timed crises staged in a nonlinear fashion such that their common origin is diffused in the “field”?

Could that explain the well-timed murder of Benazir Bhutto by the “Pakistan Taliban”? Could that explain the well-timed destabilizing impact on Pakistan of the recent “911” attack on Mumbai using operatives recruited and trained in Pakistan? Was this too the “Pakistan Taliban”?

In a televised May 10^th interview, General Stanley McChrystal explained that winning the current war in the Middle East requires a “change in perception.” Is that the purpose of these well-timed crises? Are they meant to refresh our fear of the “Pakistan Taliban”?

The displacement of facts with false beliefs induced us to invade Iraq consistent with a narrative that was revitalized by this latest well-timed “incident.” Is the American public again being manipulated by those skilled at managing perceptions?

Is this incident a high profile example of field-based warfare being waged on America? Are we in the midst of another psy-ops?

Is that possible? Could there be a sufficient critical mass of like-minded operatives in positions of influence capable of inducing enough minds to freely embrace another war that is not in our interest?

Is it possible in the Information Age that psy-ops could operate on such a scale? Is there sufficient collateral support in key decision-making quarters to again deceive an entire nation in plain sight yet, to date, with legal impunity?

Pakistan has long been an ally of the U.S. So was Iraq. Likewise Iran was an ally in recent history. Where are we to find this purported “Axis of Evil”? Does its source reside in nation-states? Or does this evil reside in the mental state of those skilled at manipulating the minds of others to wage war on false pretenses?

War in Iraq Could Have Been Prevented

The answers to those questions may need to await an official, good faith investigation of the three-decade experience of Mel Rockefeller who has been profiling the common source of this duplicity—from the inside—since 1982. That experience remains ongoing.

In March 2001, he and Indonesian intelligence chief Arie Kumaat were not then able to detect the pre-staging of the mass murder on U.S. soil that emerged six months later.

After that provocation and before the manipulated response (the invasion of Iraq), Kumaat agreed to schedule a meeting for Rockefeller with former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid. A religious and political leader of 80 million moderate Muslim men, Wahid had recently presided over the world’s largest Muslim nation.

Rockefeller knew the Wahid meeting would lead to a meeting with Malaysian president Mahathir bin Mohamad. This Muslim leader was familiar with the common source of many of today’s troubles, including a well timed attempt to topple the Malaysian Minister of Defense.

Plus Kumaat had uncovered a multi-billion dollar Israeli bribe that would have destabilized the entire Indonesia government reportedly organized with the help of a nonprofit funded by American George Soros. See: The Truth About America and Pakistan

With all two Muslim nations appraised of the common Israeli source of this manipulation, could the invasion of Iraq have been stopped?

With that knowledge, could a “coalition of the willing” have been assembled to support that U.S.-led invasion? Would other nations have been energized to resist? We may never know.

Soon after agreeing to set that meeting with Wahid, Arie Kumaat was poisoned. He received a state funeral in January 2002, four months after the provocation that took the U.S. to war against Muslim Evil Doers.

Though the official account of his death cited a heart attack, a family autopsy reportedly detected the poison used to induce a heart attack. That account was confirmed in an interview with Kumaat’s son, Henrie. See: Zionist Dominance in the Obama Presidency

The People in Between

In an October 2007 speech, Defense Secretary Robert Gates identified “the people in between” as the most problematic combatant when waging “unconventional warfare.” The facts suggest that such warfare is only “unconventional” for those targeted. For the aggressor, this form of warfare is standard operating procedure.

Those waging war from the shadows imbed their operatives in that realm “in between” a targeted populace and the facts they require for a system of governance reliant on informed consent. By displacing facts with false beliefs, mental manipulation can proceed in plain sight.

Between a deceived American public and the facts they required to assess whether to wage war in Iraq were legions of pro-Israeli operatives. Many of those operatives are imbedded in media, a key in-between domain essential for success in field-based warfare.

Thus, for example, the critical agenda-advancing role played by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. He even branded his broadcasting set “The Situation Room” to lend White House-associative credibility on a network branded as “the most trusted name in news.” See: Israel’s Fifth Column: The People in Between

Likewise New York Times “reporter” Judith Miller who featured on its front page the false intelligence provided by Ahmed Chalabi, head of the credible-sounding “Iraqi National Congress.” This Iraqi expatriate and London-based Iraqi liar served as a reliable and pliable Israeli asset developed over two decades by pro-Israeli operatives, including Richard Perle who in 2001 became chairman of the U.S. Defense Policy Advisory Board.

This form of Information Age treason could only succeed if hidden in plain sight. Today’s fast-paced velocity of information ensures that media impressions now shape political agendas. Thus the importance of “the people in between” in manipulating U.S. foreign policy.

Out-of-Theater Repositioning

Pro-Israelis in the Obama administration could no longer directly shape Middle East policy after General David Petraeus, head of Central Command, complained to the Joint Chiefs about the adverse impact of the U.S.-Israeli relationship on U.S. interests in the region.

Could that explain the utility of an “out of theater” incident to refresh the narrative? That may explain the timing of an incident in a high-profile venue (Times Square) featuring a power-of-association component (New York) that could plausibly be attributed to Pakistan as a source of violent Islamic extremists.

The control wielded in Washington by the Israel lobby remains little known to mainstream Americans. As our representatives in what was meant to be a representative system of governance, the U.S. Congress now epitomizes “the people in between.” See: How the Israel Lobby Controls U.S.

The accountability of Congress to the broader population—or even to our troops in the field—is now out of the question. Meanwhile those who deceived the U.S. to war in Iraq are working to induce us to war in Iran—or Pakistan.

If the consensus storyline cannot be sustained, the consequences are clear. If the War on Terrorism loses credibility, the resulting stability will provide Americans with the breathing space required to identify the real enemy. And to begin rooting out a deeply entrenched treason.

This Can Only End Badly

Meanwhile business-as-usual continues in plain sight. The day after Israel was admitted to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu charged that Iran is provoking Israel to wage war with Syria.

When President Shimon Peres denied this week that Israel would go to war with Syria, he meant that Syria is the likely rationale for the next crisis. When on May 11^th he declared in Moscow that nuclear terror is the world’s greatest threat, rest assured that game theory war planners in Tel Aviv have in place a plausible plan for blaming such an incident on Iran-backed Hezbollah.

The same day that “proximity talks” began, the Palestinians confirmed that Israel had another settlement underway in East Jerusalem. The next day, the Israeli minister for public safety announced that Israel will demolish Arab homes in East Jerusalem.

On May 12^th (“Jerusalem Day”), the U.S.-based Conference of Presidents (of Major American Jewish Organizations) took a full-page ad in The New York Times to proclaim “Jerusalem in the Heart of the Jewish People.” Meanwhile, Netanyahu announced from Israel, “We will never divide Jerusalem.”

When this Likud Party leader calls for peace while insisting on conditions that make peace impossible, rest assured that more provocations are planned.

The latest storyline in search of traction: Syrian-provided poison-gas missiles pose a threat to Israel from Lebanon-based, Iran-backed Hezbollah. As the war on terrorism is rebranded, it is not yet clear how the Pakistan Taliban will be worked into the narrative.

All we know for certain is that Muslims will remain the Evil Doers in this storyline. And that Israelis will once again be cast as hapless victims.

Anticipating a tactical need to collapse another government, Israeli politicians are in discussions about an alliance between the Kadima Party and the Labor Party. When the latest Likud coalition falters, the resulting political instability will inject into the field the requisite “entropy” for Israel to continue on its current path without a government with whom other nations can negotiate.

See: What’s Next from Israel: Entropy or Outrage?

What is the endgame for those once again defrauding the nation that befriended this enclave six decades ago and has since defended their interests without question?

What happens when Americans understand the depth and duration of this duplicity? And when the U.S. military confirms the common source of this ongoing treason?

What happens when a long-deceived global public grasps what this entangled alliance has cost them in blood and treasure over the past 62 years?

What Next for The People in Between?

The most recent Sunday edition of The New York Times is filled not with hopes of a nuclear-free Middle East but with fears of the future horrors inflicted on Americans by Muslim Evil Doers.

That storyline is reinforced on television by a reminder of the horrors inflicted on Danny Pearl. Meanwhile it’s made to appear that pro-Israeli moderates are busily working to restrain extremists in the Likud Party. That too is part of the storyline.

The Big Question is this: is anyone still buying it? Meanwhile the Big Sell continues.

The Sunday New York Times featured page after page marketing fear and insecurity:

• The front page featured a large photo of U.S.-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awaki who advised a series of alleged Evil Doers whose photos were also prominently displayed:
  • Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter. See: Make the Real Terrorists Accountable

• Umar Farouck Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day Bomber. See: Christmas Day Crotch Bomber tied to Israel, FBI

• Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square Bomber See: Pakistan the Evil Doer and the Times Square Fizzler

The featured article consumed two full inside pages. There was no news coverage—none—of the pending U.N. proposal to free the Middle East of nuclear weapons.

The front page of the commentary section in the national paper of record included two major articles. The first article warned that this enemy “may mutate and even grow.” The second analysis explored “when to suspend fear.”

The book review section featured “Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England,” and “Heidegger—The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy.”

The only mention of the pending U.N. proposal for ridding the Middle East of nuclear weapons appeared in the lead editorial titled “Fixing the Treaty.” The editors’ assessment of Israel giving up its nuclear weapons: “That is not going to happen any time soon.”

To successfully wage war in the shared field of consciousness, an enemy must hide in plain sight. Otherwise, those deceived cannot be induced to believe.

There lies the fast-emerging peril for those complicit in this ongoing treason. As the common source of this duplicity becomes transparent, its operatives are becoming apparent.

Pakistan Taliban

Pakistan the Evil Doer and the Times Square Fizzler

Were Muslim Evil Doers again at work in New York?

Is that the lesson to be learned from a May 1^st “car bomb” that fizzled while parked alongside the Marriott Hotel in Manhattan’s busy Times Square?

Why now?

The clues are there if only investigators will follow the facts. With reports of this latest Evil Doer dominating national news coverage, where should investigators look?

Start with the May 4^th New York Times. A helpful clue appears in the last sentence of the last paragraph of an article buried on page 13 titled “Iran Angrily Defends Nuclear Program.”

There you will also find the Times’ account of a U.N. speech by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Years ago he urged: “Zionism must be erased from the pages of history.”

Or, as translated by The Times, “Israel must be wiped off the map.”

Oft described as a “Holocaust Denier,” he routinely challenges the consensus belief about its number of casualties. His persistence on that delicate points explains why the U.N. General Assembly was only one-third full during his May 3^rd speech.

The same day that Muslim Evil Doing dominated our national media, our “paper of record” published only a cursory report of U.N. efforts to contain nuclear nonproliferation—the threat with which both Iran and Ahmadinejad are most closely associated:

“A compromise worked out in 1995 called for a special conference on creating a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East, but it has never been convened. Egypt is again demanding that gathering. The United States position has been that such a treaty can be worked out only after a comprehensive Middle East peace plan.”

Could the possibility of such a treaty after a 15-year delay explain the timing of this widely reported Evil Doing? Which nation is best placed—and most motivated—to scuttle a comprehensive peace plan?

Peace Plans vs. the Agent Provocateur

Let’s take a quick look at Israeli conduct since 1948. That’s when President Harry Truman, a Christian Zionist, recognized Jewish Zionism as a legitimate basis for a state.

1956: Just eight years later, Zionists played a leading role in provoking the Suez Crisis in an attempt to expand Israel’s agreed-to borders. That crisis was timed to emerge during the reelection campaign of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

1963: In June, President John F. Kennedy wrote to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to insist on inspections of Israel’s Dimona reactor. Even then, 47 years ago, a U.S. president sought to preclude a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The next day, Ben-Gurion announced his timely resignation. Five months later, following Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon Johnson approved more U.S. arms for Israel.

1967: In June, Zionists mounted a Six-Day land grab designed to appear defensive. That provocation ensured the region-wide hostility that remains an ongoing catalyst for conflicts and hostilities in the Middle East. Johnson covered-up the Israeli attack on a U.S. Navy ship, the USS Liberty, that killed 34 Americans and wounded 175. The admiral father of Republican Senator John McCain played a key role in the cover-up.

The same night that this long-planned war began, Johnson was being ‘serviced’ in the White House by Mathilde Krim, a former Irgun operative then married to Arthur Krim, president of United Artists and the top fundraiser for the Democratic Party—then headed by Johnson. See McCain Family Secret: The Cover-up.

2003: Fast forward 36 years and a Republican Christian Zionist president was induced to order the U.S. military to war in Iraq in response to: (a) a high-profile provocation in Manhattan, and (b) intelligence “fixed” around an agenda consistent with Zionists’ expansionist goals for Greater Israel.

When advising Democrat Truman against extending U.S. recognition to this extremist enclave, the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs described the Zionists’ “fanatical concepts” and cautioned him about their intent to seek “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.” The consistency of Israeli behavior has since proven the correctness of that candid military assessment.

2008: Between Christmas 2008 and the January 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama, Zionists mounted a military assault on Palestinians confined in Gaza, leaving more than 1400 dead, including 400 children. That well-timed provocation rekindled region-wide outrage that undermined U.S. military efforts in the region and deepened the distrust of Americans by Muslims to whom the U.S. already appeared guilty by association.

Sum of All Fears

Does the appearance in Times Square of a Muslim Evil Doer credibly reinforce the need for the U.S. to lead a Global War on Terrorism? Or was the Fizzler a “patsy”—a pawn—deployed to freshen up a stale storyline and revive a flagging geopolitical narrative?

The botched Manhattan incident is hauntingly similar to the “Christmas Day Bomber.” That similarly botched event is widely ridiculed as “The Crotch Bomber” by those aware of the facts confirming that “terrorist” event was an Israeli operation reliant on a Muslim “patsy.”

As with the young Nigerian apprehended on Christmas Day while enroute from Amsterdam to Detroit, the Times Square Pakistani “terrorist” was, at best, inept. When he locked the car, he left his apartment key in a vehicle featuring an identification number that helped ensure his arrest within two days.

Yet to be assessed is how he was allowed to travel freely between the U.S. and western tribal regions of Pakistan where he was reportedly being “trained.”

Media reports embellished the import of multiple bags of fertilizer in his car. Those reports evoked memories of Timothy McVeigh and a fertilizer-laden truck bomb used in a 1995 incident in Oklahoma City that left 168 dead, including children attending a day care center.

Only with a close perusal of The Times report could a reader uncover the concession that the fertilizer used by this latest Evil Doer was non-explosive.

As this 30-year old Pakistani stepped away from his recently purchased car, the Rube Goldberg contraption “rigged to explode” was already smoking (i.e., fizzling), ensuring it would quickly be spotted in the most heavily trafficked area in midtown Manhattan.

Evil Doer or Pliable Asset?

Was this latest “Muslim terrorist” an “asset” as described in the sophisticated psy-ops used in unconventional warfare? Assets are people profiled in sufficient depth that they can be relied on to perform consistent with their profile when placed in a circumstance over which the perpetrators exert influence. See: How Israel Wages War in Plain Sight.

Was this operation another asset-enabled provocation designed to manipulate the thoughts and emotions of Americans? Could this latest incident be an example of how well-timed psy-ops are deployed to shape policy-making in the U.S. and the U.N.?

Is this incident a U.S. counterpart to how Gaza is “rigged to explode” based on a six-decade siege, the routine use of disproportionate force and a seething bitterness periodically rekindled by announcements of more settlements on disputed land?

Is the American mindset being “rigged to explode” against Muslim Evil Doers? Is that the psy-ops purpose of serial incidents marketed by mainstream media with a common theme of “Islamo” fascism?

In an era of Information Age warfare, national security requires an ability to distinguish predator from prey. And genuine victims from those adept at creating consensus beliefs. It was consensus beliefs in phony intelligence that induced us to war in Iraq in response to the provocation of 911.

Probabilistic Media Reporting

For game theory war planners, the outcomes of their operations are never 100% certain. By controlling key variables, however, desired results become likely and even mathematically foreseeable. In national security parlance, the results of game theory-modeled operations are “probabilistic.” See: How Israel Wages Game Theory Warfare.

What was the likelihood of Bill Clinton’s reaction to sexual overtures from White House intern Monica Lewinsky at a time-critical juncture in the lead-up to the war on terrorism? What was the probability of Lyndon Johnson’s response to the wiles of Mathilde Krim in the lead-up to the 1967 war?

As with the foreseeable reaction to well-timed personal encounters, so too the probabilistic outcome of reactions to well-timed provocations. The strategic motivation behind terrorist events may be difficult to discern. For game theory war planners, the goal is typically the anticipated reaction. And the reaction to that reaction….

Thus the essential narrative-advancing role of media reports that focus on the incident without a context for the public to appraise its potential game theory purpose.

What was the likely response of a Christian Zionist commander-in-chief when provoked by a mass murder on U.S. soil? How difficult was it to profile the personality of G.W. Bush?

Was the probable response enhanced when key decision-making variables were controlled with phony intelligence “fixed” around a pre-determined goal?

Other than like-minded fanatics with a genius for game theory math, who could orchestrate such an operation in plain sight?

What’s the probability that this latest “terrorist event” in Manhattan would have an impact on U.N. treaty negotiations in Manhattan? Or that this incident could affect Zionist goals?

What was the likelihood that those reporting the news (with an undisclosed bias) would obscure U.N. negotiations on nuclear nonproliferation while highlighting this “terrorist” event?

Did the timing of this incident have anything to do with the fact that the Iranian leader, Holocaust Denier and Muslim Evil Doer was scheduled to speak in Manhattan?

For a nation reliant on informed choice to defend its interest, what could possibly be more perilous to our ability to protect ourselves from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?

What impressions did this reporting—still ongoing—create in the minds of Americans?

Is this another example of how consensus beliefs are created to advance a narrative?

Is the intent to reinforce the threat of a nuclear Iran? Is that our national media downplayed the potential of a Middle East free of the threat of nuclear weapons?

Game Theory and the Restoration of National Security

Only after the Fizzler operation did a likely motivation for its timing come into focus. On May 5^th, four days after the incident, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council voiced support for making the entire Middle East a nuclear-free zone.

That would mean scrapping nuclear weapons in the hands of Zionists—or what the Joint Chiefs called Jewish “fanatics” who seek to dominate the Muslim-dominant Middle East.

When your numbers are few but your ambitions vast (i.e., fanatical), what choice do you have but to induce another nation to wage your wars? How else could Zionists proceed but by befriending the nation they intended to betray?

How could they defraud us without first befriending us? What better force-multiplier for Zionists to pursue their ambitious goals than to nurture at the close of WWII a “special relationship” with a nuclear-armed superpower?

How better to succeed from the shadows than with serial operations carried out by agent provocateurs skilled in the game theory modeling of anticipated reactions?

As for Iran and its widely reported ambitions to develop nuclear weapons, media accounts routinely omit a key component in this professed peril: Iran has no capacity to project force.

Nuclear terrorism, however, is consistent with game theory provocations. Will we see such operations? Will we see a nuclear “event” in the U.S.?

Will nuclear devices be deployed by a state whose expansionist goals can only succeed by sustaining a consensus narrative: The Clash of Civilizations?

Just days before this incident, the U.S. extended sanctions against Syria, largely in reliance on Israeli intelligence charging that Damascus was shipping Scud missiles to Hezbollah.

A narrative has already been launched to connect Iran-supported Hezbollah to an “incident” in the U.S.

Two weeks after Israel invaded Lebanon to pursue Hezbollah in July 2006, Israeli operative Jerome Corsi launched at Ground Zero in Manhattan a book titled Minutemen. Its theme: due to our failed immigration policies, Hezbollah terrorists are sneaking across the Mexican border and plotting another 911.

Did Zionists Walk into A Trap?

How can those targeted by such duplicity make the perpetrators transparent in real time? Did the U.S. lull this serial agent provocateur into staging a transparent operation?

Did the Fizzler incident help make apparent a network of psy-ops support, including the role of undisclosed bias in mainstream media? We don’t know.

What we know is this: as with the Crotch Bomber, our national media assessed and reported the incident consistent with The Clash storyline. Reports routinely referred to the Christmas Day Bomber as proof of an ongoing threat from fanatical Muslims.

We also know this: the media profile given this provocation obscured progress in a long-delayed international effort meant to contain the threat of nuclear terrorism. To sustain the consensus narrative requires plausible events that sustain a fearful mindset.

Right on cue, a reliable political asset, Vice President Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden, charged in a May 6^th keynote speech to the European Parliament in Brussels that Iran (i.e., not Israel) could provoke a “nuclear arms race” in the Middle East.

Emboldened by support from those in positions of influence, Tel Aviv defended its “opaque” nuclear weapons policy that same day, citing the policy’s “strategic advantage.” Israel also reconfirmed its refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty until a comprehensive Arab-Israel peace plan is in place.

With peace negotiations downgraded to “proximity talks,” Israeli officials resumed their taunts by insisting on a Palestinian “incitement index” demanding that Palestinians stop anti-Israel incitement and promote education toward peace.

Such Israeli conduct only further underscores their confidence that no one will hold them accountable, especially the U.S.

Psy-ops in the Information Age

This “Pakistani terrorism” appears tailor-made (and timed) to gain traction for the consensus belief in an “Islamo” fascist narrative. That belief may yet attain critical mass.

Yet transparency is on the rise along with a steadily widening grasp of how agent provocateur operations and game theory warfare manipulate the public mindset.

Successful psy-ops are measured not by an incident but by how thinking shifts in response.

As during the Kennedy era, the Middle East presents the greatest threat of nuclear proliferation. Since the Truman era, Zionist goals have dominated politics in the Middle East and remain at the center of the nuclear nonproliferation challenge.

Should Barack Obama seek to secure Israel’s nuclear arsenal, what will be his fate?

Should Zionist fanatics conclude that their agenda for regional dominance is at risk, will they stage a nuclear Masada?

Could such an event be orchestrated to make it appear the work of Muslim Evil Doers?

If that possibility has not been factored into our national security equation, those charged with protecting the U.S. badly misread the mindset of the fanatic.

With transparency emerging at a steadily increasing pace, accountability now looms on the geopolitical horizon. What are those complicit to do? What are their alternatives?

The opposition to peace traces its roots not to Pakistan or Iran. Nor will its source be found in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt or other Muslim nations in a region that Zionists mean to dominate.

The opponents of peace are those Albert Einstein and 27 prominent Jews described in a December 1948 letter to The New York Times as “this latest manifestation of fascism.”

The Last Birthday?

May 14^th marks the 62^nd anniversary of Harry Truman’s fateful two-sentence statement extending to this extremist enclave U.S. recognition as a legitimate state.

The goals of Zionist fanatics remain unchanged. The only change is this: an informed public is beginning to grasp the murderous measures to which Israel and its supporters will resort to attain those goals.

We now have a lengthy history to prove it. Transparency will be the death knell of Zionism. The only question is this: at what additional cost in human suffering?

The Mossad, Israel’s intelligence and foreign operations directorate, specializes in waging war “by way of deception.” Zionist game theory modeling succeeds in plain sight through serial provocations that set in motion cascades of foreseeable reactions.

A former Mossad case officer revealed the simple secret of Israel’s success at catalyzing and sustaining serial conflicts: “Once the orchestra starts to play, we just hum along.”

Thus the tactical role of duplicity in fostering environments of fear, distrust and hatred. Thus the strategic need to sustain The Clash of Civilizations as a plausible narrative.

As those most clearly responsible for enabling this treachery, we Americans must concede our central role. That role obliges us to ensure a rapid closure to this anguished chapter in human history.

Americans must lead an initiative to withdraw recognition, impose a democratic one-state solution and transform Jerusalem into an international city protected under U.N. auspices.

Most critically, Israel’s nuclear arsenal must be secured consistent with decades of experience confirming that Zionists pose the world’s greatest threat to nuclear proliferation.