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.
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.
Were Muslim Evil Doers again at work in New York?
Is that the lesson to be learned from a May 1st “car bomb” that fizzled while parked alongside the Marriott Hotel in Manhattan’s busy Times Square?
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 4th 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 3rd 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 5th, 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 6th 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 14th marks the 62nd 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.
The history of Israel as a geopolitical fraud will fill entire libraries as those defrauded marvel at how so few deceived so many for so long. Those duped include many naive Jews who—even now—identify their interests with this extremist enclave.
Israeli leaders are wrong to worry about “de-legitimization.” They are right to fear that a long-deceived public is fast realizing that Israel’s founding was key to an ongoing deception.
The Invention of the Jewish People did not begin with Shlomo Sand’s 2009 bestseller by that title. There was no Exile says this Jewish scholar. Nor was there an Exodus. So how could there be a Return, the core premise of Israeli statehood?
If this patch of Palestinian land never rightly belonged to a mythical Jewish People, what then for the legitimacy of the “Jewish homeland.” And for that depiction by British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour in his November 1917 letter to Lord Rothschild?
Were Christians likewise seduced by Sunday school teachings reliant on the phony findings of Biblical archeologist William Albright? Shlomo Sand chronicles how in the 1920s Albright interpreted every excavation in Palestine to “reaffirm the Old Testament and thereby the New.”
In 1948, President Harry Truman, a Christian Zionist, was advised by Secretary of State George Marshall not to recognize this enclave as a state. This WWII general assured Truman that he would vote against him—and did.
That military tradition resurfaced in January 2010 when General David Petraeus dispatched a team to brief Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the perils that Israel still poses to U.S. national security. Mullen was reportedly shocked. See: The Petraeus Briefing.
He should not have been surprised. Such insights are hardly new. More than six decades ago the Joint Chiefs of Staff cautioned Truman about the “fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders” and their plans for “Jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.”
In December 1948, Albert Einstein and 27 prominent Jews urged us “not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.” They warned that a “Leader State” was the goal of the “terrorist party” that has governed Israel over all but a handful of the past 62 years.
The Joint Chiefs foresaw the “Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the U.S.] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.”
Soon after Truman recognized Israel, his presidential campaign train was “refueled” by Zionist Jews with $400,000 in contributions ($3.6 million in 2010 dollars). Soon thereafter, Israel betrayed the U.S. by allying with the British and the French to invade Egypt.
Though London and Paris soon abandoned the operation, months more were required to dissuade Tel Aviv from pursuing their expansionist agenda then—as now—for Greater Israel.
Outraged by Israeli duplicity, Eisenhower sought help to rein them in. He soon found that even then (as now) the Israel lobby dominated Congress. Thus the former Supreme Allied Commander appeared on television with an appeal directly to the American people. Then—unlike now—a U.S. Commander in Chief threatened to reduce assistance to Israel.
To revamp Israel’s tattered image, New York public relations expert Edward Gottlieb retained novelist Leon Uris to write Exodus. Jewish Zionists have routinely proven themselves skilled storytellers and masterful mythmakers.
This 1958 bestseller was translated into dozens of languages and quickly made into a movie for the 1960 Christmas season starring Paul Newman and featuring Peter Lawford, brother-in-law of the just-elected President John F. Kennedy. See: Time for an American Intifada?
The Myth of a Loyal Ally
Phil Tourney survived the June 8, 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that left 34 Americans dead and 175 wounded. The region-wide dynamics accompanying that provocative Six-Day land grab guaranteed the conflicts that remain so perilous to U.S. national security.
It was during this Israeli operation that Tourney gave a one-fingered salute to armed Israeli troops as they hovered in helicopters over the USS Liberty while preparing to rappel to the deck and, he surmises, kill the survivors and sink the ship.
Just then the captain aboard a nearby U.S. carrier scrambled jets to assist a vessel under attack by an “ally.” When Israeli intelligence intercepted the transmission, the helicopters fled only to have President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara recall our fighters.
Soon thereafter, Israeli torpedo boats pulled alongside the USS Liberty to inquire if those aboard needed assistance. Those same boats had just blown a hole in the hull, killing 25 Americans. Israeli machine-gunners had then strafed stretcher-bearers, firemen, life rafts and even the fire hoses—all clear war crimes. Only then did this ally display the chutzpah to ask if our servicemen required assistance.
Had that notorious land grab failed to advance the narrative of Israel as the victim, what might be the condition of U.S. national security today? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently conceded the duplicity that continues to typify this “special relationship.”
As he confessed: “Our policy on Jerusalem is the same policy followed by all Israeli governments for 42 years, and it has not changed. As far as we are concerned, building in Jerusalem is the same as building in Tel Aviv.”
In other words, the 1967 war was neither defensive nor preemptive but an outright taking of land that, one year later, Tel Aviv acknowledged as precisely what concerned the Pentagon 62 years ago.
In effect, Netanyahu confirmed that this relationship reflects multi-decade premeditation. The U.S. has since discredited itself by protecting this “ally” from the rule of law for its taking and brutal occupation of land that rightly belongs to others.
Even now, few know that Mathilde Krim, a former Irgun operative, was “servicing” our Commander-in-Chief in the White House the night the 1967 war began. Her husband, Arthur, then chaired the finance committee for the Democratic National Committee.
Even now, few Americans know the role in that cover-up played by Admiral John McCain, Jr. Or the role still played in this sordid history by his son, Republican Senator John McCain III. See: McCain Family Secret.
Are those who champion this “state” the same belief-makers responsible for the myth of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Iraqi meetings in Prague? Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories? High-level Iraqi contacts with Al Qaeda? Iraqi yellowcake uranium from Niger?
Was any of that intelligence legitimate? Whose interests were served by deceiving the U.S. to wage war in the Middle East? By the Suez Crisis? By the Six-Day War? By covering up the attack on the USS Liberty?
Adhering to an Enemy?
How are U.S. interests served by treating Israel as a legitimate state? When was Israeli behavior anything other than duplicitous? At what point do we concede the common source of the storylines foisted on an imperiled global public?
Who created the narrative that saw us segue seamlessly from a global Cold War to a global War on Terrorism? Remember the promise of a post-Cold War “peace dividend”? Who induced the U.S. to wage a war whose costs could total $3 trillion, including $700 billion in interest?
Why is debt always the prize? At the end of WWII, the U.S. was home to 50% of the world’s productive power. Were we induced to hollow out our economy by the same consensus-shapers that induced us to wage war in the Middle East?
Do these devastating dynamics trace to a common source?
Who benefits from the “Islamo” fascist narrative? Whose storyline—really—is The Clash of Civilizations? Who has long spied on the U.S. and routinely transferred to other nations our most sensitive defense technologies?
Who had the means, motive, opportunity and, importantly, the stable nation state intelligence required to perpetrate such a debilitating fraud from inside the U.S. government? And from inside other governments that joined the “coalition of the willing”?
If not Israel and its supporters—who? In effect, are those now advocating an “unbreakable bond” with Israel giving aid and comfort to an enemy within?
Israel is right to worry. It was never legitimate. As both an enabler and a target of this fraud, the U.S. has an obligation to concede its source—and to secure the weapons of mass destruction now under the control of this enclave.
“It’s very good….Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)”.
Response of former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when asked on September 11, 2001 what the attacks meant for U.S.-Israeli relations
Game theory war-planners rely on mathematical models to anticipate and shape outcomes with staged provocations. For the agent provocateur, the reactions to a provocation—as well as the reactions to those reactions—thereby become predictable within an acceptable range of probabilities.
With ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan poised to expand to Iran and Pakistan, it is time to take a closer look at how conflicts are catalyzed—by way of deception.
When Israeli game theorist Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in economic science, he conceded from Jerusalem, “the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel” has turned “Israel into the leading authority in this field.” A professor at the Center for the Study of Rationality at Hebrew University, Aumann’s Nobel lecture, titled “War and Peace,” expounded on the rationality of war.
With a well-modeled provocation, a target’s anticipated reaction can even become a weapon in the aggressor’s arsenal. In response to the provocation of 9-11, how difficult was it to foresee that the U.S. would deploy its military to avenge that attack? With U.S. intelligence “fixed” by well-placed insiders around a predetermined goal, how difficult was it to anticipate that the reaction to 9-11 could be redirected to wage war in Iraq?
The emotional component of a provocation plays a key role in game theory warfare. With the nationally televised mass murder of 3,000 people, a state of shock, grief and outrage made it easier for Americans to believe that a known Evil Doer in Iraq was responsible—regardless of the facts.
For false beliefs to displace real facts requires mental preconditioning so that a targeted population can be persuaded to put their faith in fictions. That conditioning enhances the probability of a successful deception. Those who deceived the U.S. to invade Iraq in March 2003 began a decade beforehand to lay the “mental threads” and make the requisite mental associations to advance that agenda.
Notable among those threads was the 1993 publication in Foreign Affairs of a theme-setting article by Harvard University professor Samuel Huntington. By the time his analysis appeared in book-length form in 1996 as The Clash of Civilizations, more than 100 think tanks were prepared to promote it. The result created a widely touted narrative—a thematic storyline—supporting a “clash consensus” five years before 9-11 provided a plausible rationale for war.
Also published in 1996 under the guidance of Richard Perle was A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e., Israel). A member since 1987 of the U.S. Defense Policy Board, this self-professed Zionist became its chairman in 2001.
As an adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Perle’s Pentagon advisory post provided a powerful insider position to shape the national security mindset around the removal of Saddam Hussein, a key theme of A Clean Break—released five years before 9-11. That same year Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress at the invitation of Newt Gingrich, the Christian Zionist Speaker of the House.
Murders, books, articles, think tanks and well-placed insiders are common components in a “probabilistic” model deployed by war-planning game theorists. Lawmakers are also a customary ingredient. They provide credibility and a facade of legitimacy—a critical element when inducing a nation to war with phony intelligence fixed around a preset agenda.
That role was eagerly filled by Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from Arizona, when they co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. By promoting Israel’s 1996 agenda for Securing the Realm, their legislation laid yet another mental thread in the public mindset by calling for the ouster of Saddam Hussein—three years before 9-11.
The legislation also appropriated $97 million to promote their agenda. Distracted by mid-term Congressional elections and impeachment proceedings catalyzed by a well-timed presidential affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton signed that Zionist agenda into law in October 1998—4-1/2 years before a U.S.-led invasion removed the Iraqi leader.
After 9-11, McCain and Lieberman became inseparable travel companions and irrepressible advocates for the invasion of Iraq. Striking a presidential pose aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in January 2002, McCain—a son and grandson of admirals—laid another mental thread when he waved an admiral’s cap and proclaimed, alongside Lieberman, “On to Baghdad.”
By Way of Deception
The confidence with which this game theory strategy progressed in plain sight could be seen in the behavior of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, another Zionist insider. Four days after 9-11 while in a principals’ meeting at Camp David, he proposed that the U.S. invade Iraq. At that time, the intelligence did not point to Iraqi involvement and Osama bin Laden was thought to be hiding in a remote region of Afghanistan.
On that same day, San Diego FBI Special Agent Stephen Butler interrogated Iraqi Munther Ghazal at his home near San Diego to determine if he was funding Mel Rockefeller, an American with whom Ghazal traveled to Baghdad in early 1997. After meeting for several days with a top nuclear physicist with oversight of Iraq’s mothballed nuclear weapons program, Rockefeller returned to the U.S. with a practical proposal for removing Saddam Hussein without this war and without triggering an insurgency.
When regional specialists at the U.S. Department of State would not meet with him, he traveled to Ottawa in April 1997 where he met with Middle East specialists in the Canadian government to ensure a written record was made to confirm there was an alternative to war in Iraq—six years before the invasion. Instead of debriefing him, FBI agents sought to discredit him. Though FBI agents interviewed Ghazal many times, they have yet to meet with Mel Rockefeller.
Agent Butler cashed checks and paid rent for the two San Diego-based hijackers who piloted planes into the World Trade Center towers. The same Iman counseling Major Nidal Hasan (with FBI knowledge) before he was transferred to Fort Hood also counseled the San Diego-based hijackers—with FBI knowledge. As of December 1, 2009, no one from the FBI or national security had debriefed Mel Rockefeller—eight years after 9-11.
When President George H.W. Bush declined to invade Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War, Pentagon Under Secretary for Policy Paul Wolfowitz imposed a No-Fly Zone in northern Iraq. By the invasion of March 2003, the Israeli Mossad had agents deployed for a decade in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.
Intelligence reports of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda were also traced to Mosul—reports that proved false. Mosul again emerged in November 2004 as a center of the insurgency that destabilized Iraq. That reaction precluded the speedy exit of coalition forces promised in Congressional testimony by senior war-planner Wolfowitz in the lead-up to the invasion.
An Inside Job?
The common pro-Israeli source of the phony intelligence that induced war in Iraq has yet to be acknowledged even though intelligence experts agree that deception on such a scale required a decade to plan, staff, pre-stage, orchestrate and—until now—cover up. The leaders of the 9-11 Commission conceded they were thwarted by Commission members adamantly opposed to hearing testimony on the hijackers’ motivation for 9-11: the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
The fictions reported as facts by mainstream media included Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories and Iraqi purchases of “yellowcake” uranium from Niger. Only the last claim was conceded as bogus prior to the invasion.
Only after the war began were the balance of the claims disclosed as false, flawed or outright fabricated. An attempt to punish former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Joe Wilson for his exposure of the phony yellowcake account led to a federal conviction of vice-presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby, another well-placed Zionist insider.
The multi-decade consistency of agent-provocateur fact patterns suggests that this game theory-modeled warfare includes the Israeli provocation that catalyzed the Second Intifada. An intifada is an uprising or, literally, a “shaking off” of an oppressor. The Second Intifada dates from September 2000 when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon led an armed march to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount—one year before 9-11.
After a year of calm during which Palestinians believed that Israel was sincere about peace, suicide bombings recommenced. As Sharon conceded, his march was meant to demonstrate Israeli control over a site considered holy by Muslims worldwide. In response to this second failed attempt at “shaking off” Israeli domination, Sharon and Netanyahu observed that only when Americans “feel our pain” would they understand the plight of the victimized Israelis.
These Likud Party leaders commented that the requisite empathy (“feel our pain”) would require a weighted body count of 4,500 to 5,000 Americans lost to terrorism—the initial estimate of those who died in the twin towers of the World Trade Center—one year later.
In other words, only with pain could we identify with the Israelis. Does that mean that only with a mass murder could we be induced to respond with our military to advance their agenda? Was the U.S. response mathematically modeled at the Center for the Study of Rationality? Seven months after 9-11, Benjamin Netanyahu gave a speech in a U.S. Senate office building where he was introduced by Senators Jon Kyl and Joe Liebermn
When successful, game theory warfare strengthens the agent provocateur while leaving the target discredited and depleted by the anticipated reaction. By game theory standards, 9-11 was a strategic success because the U.S.—by its response—was widely criticized for waging war on false pretenses. Only in hindsight did a deceived public realize that Iraq had nothing to do with that mass murder. However, that invasion had everything to do with “securing the realm.”
Our response (predictably) triggered a deadly insurgency with devastating consequences for Iraqis, the U.S. and a “coalition of the willing” led to war by a successfully duped U.S. From a game theory perspective, that insurgency was a predictable reaction in a nation populated by three long-feuding sects: Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. A violent invasion led by a nation closely allied with Jewish nationalists only further fueled the flames of violence and extremism—another foreseeable outcome.
Until the U.S.-led invasion, peace was maintained by an unsavory dictator and former U.S. ally who was rebranded an Evil Doer in the lead-up to war. As the cost in blood and treasure from our “liberation” of Iraq expanded, the U.S. became overextended militarily, financially and diplomatically.
The sectarian violence unleashed in Iraq is precisely what Messrs. Rockefeller and Ghazal were cautioned against in early 1997 should Saddam Hussein be removed suddenly and violently. The 1.3 million Iraqi deaths from war-related causes exceeds the worst of Saddam Hussein’s atrocities. As any competent game theory war-planner knew, the strategic winner in this war was certain to be Iran as the U.S. neutralized its key foe—and is now urged by Israel to wage war on Iran.
As the U.S.—the primary target of this deception—emerged in the foreground, the agent provocateur faded into the background. But only after catalyzing dynamics that steadily drained the U.S. of credibility, resources and resolve. This “probabilistic” Israeli victory also ensured widespread cynicism, insecurity, distrust and disillusionment along with a steadily declining capacity to defend our real interests.
Meanwhile the American public came under a system of oversight and surveillance packaged and sold as “homeland security.” This ominously titled operation includes rhetorical echoes of a WWII-era “fatherland” featuring a domestic security force completely alien to U.S. traditions. It is not yet clear whether this new agency was established to protect Americans. Or whether it is meant to shield from Americans those responsible for deceiving us to wage their wars.
In January 2003, Secret Service Agent Richard Sierze interrogated Mel Rockefeller at his home in Fresno, California after he sent an email to Florida Governor Jeb Bush. The email said, in effect, that if the governor’s brother (President George Bush) did not interview him on a public record prior to invading Iraq, he would do his best to ensure that lawful means were deployed to see the president executed for treason by a firing squad.
When questioned by Sierze, Rockefeller offered to have the agent speak with Dr. Glenn Olds, an adviser to four presidents, his senior adviser since 1994 and a former U.N. Ambassador who assisted him in entering Iraq through Jordon at a time when Americans were prohibited from traveling there. Sierze declined.
He also repeated his intent to see the president executed for treason and insisted that he be charged and taken before a federal magistrate to present evidence that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and that an alternative to war had been available since early 1997. Agent Sierze declined his demand to be arraigned in a U.S. Federal District Court—seven weeks before the invasion.
Agent Sierze should be interviewed to see if, in retrospect, he agrees that—had this advice been followed—the war in Iraq may well have been prevented. To date, no one with line responsibility has interviewed Mel Rockefeller on a public record. Why? The answer to that question would reveal those responsible for this ongoing deception.
The victims of these serial deceptions, including the families of those murdered in November at Fort Hood, may have a wrongful death cause of action against those with line responsibility who aided these operations by failing to engage the Rockefeller record in a timely fashion.
By manipulating the shared mindset, skilled game theory war-planners can wage wars on multiple fronts with minimal resources. One proven strategy: Pose as an ally of a well-armed nation predisposed to deploy its military in response to a mass murder.
In this case, the result destabilized Iraq while creating (predictable) crises that could be exploited to greater strategic advantage by expanding the conflict to Iran, another Israeli goal announced in A Clean Break—seven years before the invasion of Iraq.
Today’s mathematically model-able outcomes undermined U.S. national security by discrediting our leadership, degrading our financial condition and disabling our political will. In game theory terms, this devastation was perfectly predictable—within an acceptable range of probabilities.
Pakistan is primed to emerge as the next battleground for game theory war-planners. When India, an ally of Israel, became the nation honored by the Obama administration’s first state dinner, that occasion gave reason for concern due to the dynamics already at work in the background.
In the asymmetry that typifies modern warfare, those who are few in number have no alternative when pursuing an expansionist agenda but to wage their wars by way of deception. To maintain its perceived status as a perennial victim, Israeli aggression must proceed non-transparently. Its only option is to operate with duplicitous means, including leveraging the power of its insider influence to advance an agenda from the shadows.
Thus the strategic necessity that this extremist enclave befriend the U.S.—with the intent to betray that friendship to advance its geopolitical goals. Thus the strategic need to create a relationship of trust with a post-WWII super power—in order to defraud us. How else could Colonial Zionists wage their wars except with our military? How else could Jewish nationalists induce our aggression absent the widely shared belief that Israel is not an aggressor but a victim?
Winning Wars from the Inside Out
Game theory war-planners manipulate the shared mental environment by shaping the perceptions and impressions that become consensus opinions. With a combination of well-timed crises, fixed intelligence and a complicit media, policy-makers can be induced to support a predetermined agenda—not because lawmakers are Evil Doers but because the public mindset has been pre-conditioned to respond to manipulated thoughts, emotions and beliefs.
Without the mass murder of 9-11, would America’s credibility be in tatters and its creditworthiness in jeopardy? By steadily displacing facts with false beliefs, those duplicitous few-within-the-few amplify the impact of their deceit. By their steady focus on the mental environment, game theory war-planners can defeat an opponent with vastly superior resources.
Today’s intelligence wars are waged in plain sight and under the cover of shared beliefs. By manipulating consensus opinion, psy-ops wars can be won from the inside out by inducing a targeted populace to freely choose the very forces that imperil their freedom.
Thus in the Information Age the disproportionate power wielded by those with outsized influence in media, popular culture, think tanks, academia and politics—domains where Zionist influence is pervasive not only in the U.S. but also in other nations induced to war on false pretenses.
Germany offers a case study in manipulation of the public mindset in plain sight and under the banner of a free press. In 2003, Zionist media mogul Haim Saban acquired the second largest media conglomerate in Germany. Why? As Saban investment banker Steve Rattner explained his client’s motivation: “Because Germany is important to Israel.” Or, as Saban concedes: “I have only one issue and that issue is Israel.”
By 2005, Saban had succeeded in electing Angela Merkel as German Chancellor. She quickly became the European Union’s most reliable and forceful advocate for Israel. By November 2009, she was prepared to sponsor in Berlin an unprecedented joint session of the German and Israeli governments. Following his political success in Germany, Saban acquired in 2007 a controlling interest in Univision, a Latino-focused network serving the fastest-growing voting bloc in the U.S.
Media manipulation serves as an essential force-multiplier to wage intelligence wars from the periphery or, as with Haim Saban, in plain sight. At the operational core of such psy-ops are game theory war-planners skilled at personality profiling and masterful at anticipating responses to staged provocations and then incorporating those responses into their arsenal.
In the case of Iraq, our (mathematically) foreseeable response to 9-11 led, in practical effect, to Israel’s deployment of our military to invade Iraq. For aggressors adept at psy-ops warfare, facts are only an inconvenience to be overcome when waging war by way of deception. Thus the key role played by consensus-shapers featured in mainstream media outlets who focus not on informing the public but on mental conditioning.
For targeted populations dependent on facts and informed consent to protect their freedom and preserve the rule of law, such treachery poses the greatest possible threat. Yet even now many Americans believe that Israel is not an aggressor but a victim and even an ally despite facts confirming a multi-decade pattern of expansionist nationalism and geopolitical deception.
Adhering to an Enemy
The U.S. is far less secure than before 9-11. Tel Aviv clearly intends to continue its serial provocations as evidenced by its ongoing expansion of settlements and its continuing blockade of Gaza. Israel has shown no willingness to negotiate in good faith. With few exceptions, Barack Obama has named as senior advisers either Zionists are those known to be strongly pro-Israeli.
The greatest threat to world peace is not Islam. The most fundamental threat that underlies all others is our “special relationship” with a skilled agent provocateur. Without U.S. support for an enclave of nuclear-armed religious extremists, the common source of this threat could long ago have been identified and steps taken to ensure its containment.
In the same way that lengthy pre-staging was required to induce the U.S. to invade Iraq, a similar strategy is now underway to persuade the U.S. to invade Iran or support an attack by Israel. Pakistan is also now on the agenda of those marketing The Clash narrative with its vision of a perpetual war against “militant Islam.” Similar mental conditioning is again at work, including the high profile branding of the requisite Evil Doer: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad.
From its outset, the Zionist enterprise sought supremacy in the Middle East. To date, its alliance with the U.S. has enabled the deployment of American military might in pursuit of goals set by Jewish nationalists more than a half-century before a Christian Zionist U.S. president was induced to extend nation-state recognition. Harry Truman made that fateful decision despite his fears that Israel would become what Zionist lobbyists assured him it would not become—and what it immediately became: a racist and theocratic state.
Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence required to take the U.S. to war in the Middle East while making it appear that Islam—not Israel—is the problem. When a long-deceived American public—especially the U.S. military—grasps the common source of this devastating duplicity, the response will shift the geopolitical landscape. The facts suggest that “sympathy for Israel” is not among the probable reactions.
If Barack Obama continues to cater to these extremists, this Nobel peace laureate can rightly be blamed when the next attack features the usual orgy of evidence pointing to a pre-staged Evil Doer. Should another mass murder occur, that incident may well be traceable to the U.S.-Israeli relationship and to the failure of our policy-makers to protect America—and world peace—from this enemy within.
First published December 1, 2009
The lead-up to the first U.S.-Iran talks in three decades saw a replay of the same modus operandi that induced the U.S. and its allies to invade Iraq in March 2003. Then as now, the invasion of Iran is consistent with a regime change agenda for Greater Israel described in a 1996 strategy document prepared by Jewish-Americans for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
As with Iraq, the threat of weapons of mass destruction is again marketed as a causa belli. As with Iraq, the claim is disputed by weapons inspectors and intelligence analysts. The Iraqi program had been shut down a dozen years before the invasion. In Iran, there is no evidence that uranium is being enriched beyond the low levels required for energy and medical purposes.
Reports of a “secret” processing plant failed to note that Iran suspended uranium enrichment from 2003 until 2005. Seeing no change in the political climate except more sanctions and more Israeli threats to bomb its nuclear sites, Iran began building and equipping a new facility.
As with Iraq, there is no direct threat to the U.S. As with Iraq, mainstream U.S. media focused not on Israel—the only nation in the region known to have nuclear weapons—but on Iran. Enrichment is relatively easy compared to the steps required to design, build and reliably deliver a nuclear warhead. Activity around each of those steps can be readily detected.
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that even if Iran were attacked, that does nothing to alter Iran’s nuclear prospects—except provoke them to develop the very weapons that the evidence suggests are not now being produced. Is this a calculated move to exert pressure on Tehran? Or to provoke them? Or is this a move by Washington to buy time from an “ally” that threatens an attack—with disastrous effects on U.S. interests and those of its genuine allies?
To catalyze a climate of insecurity among Jews, pro-Israelis periodically claim that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposes to “wipe Israel off the map.” A correct translation confirms that what he urged is that “this occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time.” Akin to the widely sought demise of the oppressive Soviet regime, that proposal enjoys the support of many moderate, secular and non-Zionist Jews who have long recognized the threat that Jewish extremists pose to the broader Jewish community.
No one can explain why Iran, even if nuclear armed, would attack Israel with its vast nuclear arsenal estimated at 200-400 warheads, including several nuclear-armed submarines. In mid-July, Israeli warships deployed to the Red Sea to rehearse attacks on Iran. As in the lead-up to war with Iraq, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is again beating the war drums. This is the same adviser who, four days after 9-11, advised G.W. Bush to invade Iraq.
Citing Iran’s “covert” facility, Wolfowitz claims it is “clear that Iran’s rulers are pursuing nuclear weapons.…Time is running out.” Without a hint of irony, he argues that Iran (not Israel) “is a crucial test of whether the path to a nuclear-free world is a realistic one or simply a dangerous pipe dream.” In calling for “crippling sanctions,” Howard Berman, Jewish chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, expressed similar concerns as did Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, senior Republican on the Committee and also Jewish.
If pro-Israelis cannot induce a war with Iran, the ensuing stability will enable people to identify who fixed the intelligence that deceived the U.S. to invade Iraq. Only one nation possesses the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence to mount a covert operation over the lengthy period required to pre-stage, staff, orchestrate and successfully cover-up such an act.
The evidence points to the same network of government insiders and media proponents now hyping Iran. Who benefitted from war with Iraq? Who benefits from war with Iran? Not the U.S. or its allies unless, despite the evidence, Israel is viewed as an ally–rather than an enemy within.
Can the U.S. Muster a Breakthrough Strategy?
Like Afghanistan, Iran does not have a military solution. Nor does Iraq. Geopolitically, the greatest casualty of war in the region was the United States – its credibility tattered, its military overextended and its finances devastated by a debt-financed war that Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz projects could reach $3,000 billion. Compare that with the speedy exit and a $50 billion outlay that Wolfowitz assured policy-makers could be recovered from sales of Iraqi oil.
Those who induced that invasion persuaded Americans to commit economic and geopolitical hari-kari. No external force could have defeated the sole remaining super power. Instead the U.S. was deceived—by a purported ally—to defeat itself by an ill-advised reaction to the provocation of a mass murder on U.S. soil.
The only sensible and sustainable solution is one that serves unmet needs in the region while also restoring the credibility of the U.S. as a proponent of informed choice and free enterprise. While making transparent the common source of the deceit that induced the U.S. to war, policy-makers can also lay the foundation to preclude such duplicity in the future. That requires consultation among the U.S., its true allies and those nations in the region most affected by this treachery.
Only a design solution can counter today’s systemic sources of conflict, including the extremism fueled by extremes in education, opportunity, wealth and income. As with the fixed intelligence that induced the U.S. to war in Iraq, those sources of conflict are obscured by a compliant and complicit media with an undisclosed pro-Israeli bias.
A transnational network of think tanks could expose in real time how facts are displaced by what “the mark” can be deceived to believe. With the media dominance of pro-Israelis in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Germany and other Western allies, that task must include the capacity to show how this deceit operates in plain sight yet, to date, with impunity. Absent such transparency, systems of governance reliant on informed consent will continue to be manipulated to their detriment by those who hide behind the very freedoms that such systems are meant to protect.
Running parallel with that transparency initiative must be an education program that deploys the best available technology to close the gaps in learning that sustain extremes in opportunity. Only a truly international effort can succeed in that essential task. Only trans-cultural education can preempt the mental manipulation that induced war in Iraq and now pursues war with Iran as proponents of The Clash of Civilizations gradually transform that concept into a reality.
What we now see emerging is yet another example of how wars are induced in the Information Age. Why would anyone expect modern warfare to be waged in any other way? As the common source of this duplicity becomes transparent, the solution will become apparent.
Lasting peace requires a Marshall Plan able to accelerate the transition to the Knowledge Society. This systemic challenge cannot be addressed absent a systemic strategy. The restoration of friendly and cooperative relations must include the practical steps required to heal this widening divide with education at the core.
In 2005, the Nobel Prize in Economic Science was awarded to Israeli mathematician and game theory specialist Robert J. Aumann, co-founder of the Center for Rationality at Hebrew University. This Jerusalem resident explains: “the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel” has turned “Israel into the leading authority in this field.”
Israeli strategists rely on game theory models to ensure the intended response to staged provocations and manipulated crises. With the use of game theory algorithms, those responses become predictable, even foreseeable—within an acceptable range of probabilities. The waging of war “by way of deception” is now a mathematical discipline.
Such “probabilistic” war planning enables Tel Aviv to deploy serial provocations and well-timed crises as a force multiplier to project Israeli influence worldwide. For a skilled agent provocateur, the target can be a person, a company, an economy, a legislature, a nation or an entire culture—such as Islam. With a well-modeled provocation, the anticipated reaction can even become a powerful weapon in the Israeli arsenal.
For instance, a skilled game theorist could foresee that, in response to a 911-type mass murder, “the mark” (the U.S.) would deploy its military to avenge that attack. With phony intelligence fixed around a preset goal, a game theory algorithm could anticipate that those forces might well be redirected to invade Iraq—not to avenge 911 but to pursue the expansionist goals of Greater Israel.
To provoke that invasion required the displacement of an inconvenient truth (Iraq played no role in 911) with what lawmakers and the public could be deceived to believe. The emotionally wrenching nature of that incident was essential in order to induce Americans to abandon rational analysis and to facilitate their reliance on false intelligence.
Americans were (predictably) provoked by that mass murder. The foreseeable reaction—shock, grief and outrage—made it easier for them to believe that an infamous Iraqi Evil Doer was to blame. The displacement of facts with beliefs lies at heart of how Israel, the world’s leading authority in game theory, induces other nations to wage their wars.
False but Plausible
To displace facts with credible fiction requires a period of “preparing the minds” so that the mark will believe a pre-staged storyline. Thus the essential role of a complicit media to promote: (a) a plausible present danger (Iraqi weapons of mass destruction), (b) a plausible villain (a former ally rebranded as an Evil Doer), and (c) a plausible post-Cold War threat to national security (The Clash of Civilizations and “Islamo-fascism”).
Reports from inside Israeli intelligence suggest that the war-planners who induced the 2003 invasion of Iraq began their psyops campaign no later than 1986 when an Israeli Mossad operation (Operation Trojan) made it appear that the Libyan leadership was transmitting terrorist directives from Tripoli to their embassies worldwide. Soon thereafter, two U.S. soldiers were killed by a terrorist attack in a Berlin discotheque. Ten days later, U.S., British and German aircraft dropped 60 tons of bombs on Libya.
The following is a senior Mossad operative’s assessment (published in 1994 in The Other Side of Deception) of that 1986 operation—five years before the Gulf War and 15 years before the murderous provocation that preceded the invasion of Iraq:
After the bombing of Libya, our friend Qadhafi is sure to stay out of the picture for some time. Iraq and Saddam Hussein are the next target. We’re starting now to build him up as the big villain. It will take some time, but in the end, there’s no doubt that it’ll work.
Could this account by former Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky be correct? If so, Tel Aviv’s Iraqi operation required more pre-staging than its relatively simple Libyan deception.
America the Mark
From a game theory perspective, what is the probability of a violent reaction in the Middle East after more than a half-century of serial Israeli provocations—in an environment where the U.S. is identified (correctly) as the Zionist state’s special friend and protector?
During the 1967 War, the Israeli killing of 34 Americans aboard the USS Liberty confirmed that a U.S. president (Democrat Lyndon Johnson) could be induced to condone murderous behavior by Israel. Two decades later, Operation Trojan confirmed that a U.S. president (Republican Ronald Reagan) could be induced to attack an Arab nation based on intelligence fixed by Israel.
For more than six decades, the U.S. has armed, financed, befriended and defended Zionism. This “special relationship” includes the U.S.-discrediting veto of dozens of U.N. resolutions critical of Israeli conduct. From a game theory perspective, how difficult was it to anticipate that—out of a worldwide population of 1.3 billion Muslims—19 Muslim men could be induced to perpetrate a murderous act in response to U.S support for Israel’s lengthy mistreatment of Arabs and Muslims, particularly Palestinians?
Israeli game theorists operate not from the Center for Morality or the Center for Justice but from the Center for Rationality. As modeled by Zionist war planners, game theory is devoid of all values except one: the ability to anticipate—within an acceptable range of probabilities—how “the mark” will react when provoked. Thus we see the force-multiplier potential for those who wage war with well-planned provocations and well-timed crises.
Israeli behavior is often immoral and unjust but that does not mean it is irrational. For Colonial Zionists committed to the pursuit of an expansionist agenda, even murderous provocations are rational because the response can be mathematically modeled, ensuring the results are reasonably foreseeable. That alone is sufficient for a people who, as God’s chosen, consider it their right to operate above the rule of law.
It’s now well known that Israelis and pro-Israelis “fixed” the intelligence that induced the U.S. invasion of Iraq. What’s not yet widely known is how. If peace-seeking nations hope never again to see deceit operate on such a scale, those deceived must learn this lesson before these same operatives induce a war with Iran.
To “wage war by way of deception” (the motto of the Israeli intelligence service) requires the capacity to operate in plain sight yet without detection. To detect this duplicity in real time requires a grasp of how Israeli strategists rely on three key categories of operatives: agents, assets and sayanim (Hebrew for helpers or volunteers).
Agents are fully conscious of the intended goal of an operation. Intent is what distinguishes premeditated murder from involuntary manslaughter. Culpability is gauged by the state of mind. Agents operate with what the law calls extreme malice and an “evil mind.” Thus the severity of the sanctions for premeditated capital crimes.
From 1981-1985, Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard stole 360 cubic feet of classified U.S. intelligence documents on Soviet arms shipments, Pakistani nuclear weapons, Libyan air defense systems and other data sought by Tel Aviv. With oversight by only a few case officers (katsas), Israeli agents routinely manage sophisticated operations with the help of pre-staged assets and a network of sayanim.
Assets are people profiled such that—within an acceptable range of probabilities—they can be relied upon to behave consistent with their personality profile. Assets lack the state of mind required for traditional culpability due to their lack of intent. Assets contribute to an operation simply by pursuing their subconscious personal needs. Typically those needs are for recognition, influence, money, sex, drugs or the greatest drug of all: ideology.
Put a profiled asset in a pre-staged time, place and circumstance and Israeli psy-ops specialists can be confident that—within an acceptable range of probabilities—that person will perform consistent with their profile, much as Bill Clinton behaved with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Israelis are indifferent to political parties. Pro-Israeli assets include Christian Zionist presidents Harry Truman, a Democrat, and George W. Bush, a Republican. Both were reliable and pliable advocates for a geopolitical agenda pursued by an enclave of Zionist extremists. Truman granted them nation-state recognition while Bush dispatched the U.S. military to help pursue their expansionist goals for Greater Israel.
Granting Aid and Comfort
Sayanim play a role akin to military reservists who can be activated on short notice to support Israeli operations. These helpers are shielded from criminal culpability by being told only enough to perform their narrow role. Because recruiters ensure these volunteers are kept ignorant of the broader goals of an operation, they could easily pass a polygraph test. Their narrow intent: to respond promptly to requests to assist Israel.
That assistance could be logistics, medical care or intelligence gathering. Sayanim routinely staff the “in between” positions in political offices. Morris Amitay, a former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), described the strategic role played by sayanim in U.S. policy-making:
There are a lot of guys at the working level up here [on Capitol Hill]…who happen to be Jewish, who are willing…to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness…These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in those areas for those senators…You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.
Author Victor Ostrovsky, formerly a katsa, conceded in 1990 that the Mossad had 7,000 sayanim in London alone. What this vast volunteer corps is not told is that an operation may endanger not only Israel but also the broader Jewish community when Tel Aviv is linked to extremism, terrorism, extortion, organized crime, espionage and treason. Ostrovsky explains in By Way of Deception:
…the Mossad does not seem to care how devastating it could be to the status of the Jewish people in the Diaspora if it was known. The answer you get if you ask is: “So what’s the worst that could happen to those Jews? They’d all come to Israel. Great!”
The signaling system for pro-Israeli operatives remains opaque. Yet to be explained by this U.S. ally is why, for instance, ten days before the mass murder of 911, Tel Aviv announced a $1 million grant to super-spy Jonathan Pollard.
As the duplicitous how of this Information Age warfare becomes transparent, the consistency of this treachery will become apparent as will its common source. Jurisprudence will need to adjust to ensure that those aiding such “evil mind” operations are held accountable consistent with the gravity of the crimes. Those crimes include ongoing treason, a capital offense.
In combination, agents, assets and sayanim provide a powerful force multiplier that enables an extremist few-within-the-few to wage war non-transparently yet in plain sight. Thus their key role in the “in between” domains—media, pop culture, think tanks and politics—where duplicity can be deployed to displace facts with what “the mark” can be deceived to believe.
In unconventional warfare, beliefs are deployed as weapons by those waging war by way of deception. Does anyone recall Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda? Iraq’s biological weapons laboratories? The Iraqi meetings in Prague with Al Qaeda? Iraq’s purchases of yellowcake uranium from Niger?
All were alleged true but later proven false or, worse, fabricated. Yet all were widely believed. In combination, those beliefs induced a consensus to wage war in Iraq in response to a mass murder on U.S. soil.
The battlefield has shifted. Ground warfare is secondary. Likewise for airstrikes, naval support and covert operations. Physical operations are all downstream of information operations. False beliefs come first. Psyops precede missiles, and bombs. Hardware ranks a distant third. Foremost are the consensus shapers who manipulate perceptions until a critical mass of phony intelligence is reached. Then comes war.
People are preeminent. Wars are won by those skilled at creating consensus opinions. Where is modern-day warfare waged? Not on the ground; nor in the air or on the seas. The shared mindset is this combatant’s theater of operations. Their battlefield is the shared field of consciousness. Deceit is not new to warfare. What’s new is the technology that enables psyops on a global scale.
The military remains subordinate to politics. But politics are subordinate to those skilled at manipulating consensus beliefs. Decision-making is no better than the information on which decisions depend. Likewise for decision-makers. That’s why U.S. lawmakers have long been targeted by the Israel lobby. [See: “How the Israel Lobby Took Control of the Congress”]
With law-making dependent on information, these mindset manipulators can operate atop the chain of command. In a system of law reliant on informed choice, self-governance can readily be replaced in plain sight by manipulated beliefs and consensus opinions. Thus the motivation for media dominance by Zionists in the U.S., Canada, Germany and elsewhere.
When waged across four key areas, such “Information Operations” can displace democratic lawmaking with a predetermined agenda. Here’s a quick look at each area: geopolitical, strategic, operational and tactical..
Duplicity in Plain Sight
The geopolitical realm is where the “framing” of future conflicts first emerges. The Clash of Civilizations first appeared in 1993 as an article in Foreign Affairs. Three years later, when this thematic framing emerged as a book, more than 100 NGOs were prepared to promote its conflict-of-opposites theme as a sequel to the Cold War—and a prequel to a “global war on terrorism.” That consensus belief emerged just as A Clean Break appeared with its proposal to “secure the realm” (Israel) by removing Saddam Hussein.
Strategically, to evoke a war requires a plausible Evil Doer and a credible provocation. The global branding of the Taliban emerged in the “field” in March 2001 with destruction of the ancient Buddhas at Bamiyan. Widely portrayed as a “cultural Holocaust,” that high-profile act put Afghanistan’s previously obscure Taliban on everyone’s list as certifiably evil. The missing piece: the mass murder of September 11, 2001.
Strongly provoked emotions facilitate the displacement of facts with what “the mark” can be induced to believe—particularly in the presence of Evil Doer pre-staging. The combination of (a) evocation (religious extremism), (b) provocation (911) and (c) association (the Axis of Evil) enhanced the capacity to deceive—fueled by false reports of Iraqi WMD and even ties between the secular Saddam and the fundamentalists of Al Qaeda (they detested each other).
When waging war on the public’s shared mindset, the power of association is one of the most effective weapons. Thus the potent imagery of the peaceful Buddhas at Bamiyan destroyed by violent extremists. Thus too the associative impact of Colin Powell’s appearance at the U.N. Security Council when his credibility was deployed—like a weapon—to spread lies about Iraq’s biological weapons. Not only was Powell “the mark” – so were the U.N. and the U.S.
Operationally, by the time the U.S. was induced to invade Iraq, 100-plus Israeli Mossad agents had been operating in Mosul for more than a decade. Soon after the invasion, several moderate clerics were murdered, enhancing the capacity to provoke a conflict-of-opposites between extremist Shias and more moderate Sunnis, a key to evoking the destabilizing insurgency.
As Information Operations proceed at the geopolitical, strategic and operational level, tactical deceit and misdirection provide key support. A recent provocation—the invasion of Gaza—was scheduled by Tel Aviv between Christmas and the inauguration of a U.S. President who promised change. That timing ensured minimal capacity to criticize.
As critics of Israeli policy emerged in universities, the Anti-Defamation League and its international network mounted an intimidation campaign on a high-profile campus that silenced academics worldwide. [See: “Treason in Plain Sight?”]
To succeed, Information Operations require both deceit and denial of access to the facts required for informed consent. How else can anyone explain the perception that the Zionist state is a democracy—and even an ally?
Democracy assumes that all of us collectively are smarter than any of us individually. Thus the need for an unbiased media to provide the facts with which we can reason together. Thus, in turn, the need for pro-Israeli dominance of mainstream media by those skilled at waging war by way of deception. Thus what we now see portrayed in that domain: a world turned inside out where the aggressor is portrayed as victim and the predator as prey.
With consensus beliefs the upstream target, democracy becomes the downstream casualty. To protect the informed consent essential to liberty requires that those waging war on our shared mindset be made transparent. This method of warfare is ancient; only the means are modern.
The common source of this duplicity remains unknown to the public. There lies the strategic role for online media unadorned by conspiracy theories that obscure the clarity required to wage this battle with confidence.