They’ll talk about change, about politics, about reform, about corruption, but they will never talk about war unless they mean something happening far away. Because to admit the existence of the war waged against us is to admit that we are combatants, and if we see that we are not fighting back, then we would have to admit that we have surrendered. That we have already been defeated.—The Arctic Circle Collective
This sixth and final posting of
“A Bird’s Eye View of Contrived Terror” furnishes additional
grounds for believing that most 21st century
incidents of terror in the USA have been acts of state. Two
views on the origins of terror compete for our attention.
The official view traces terror to marginal movements and
individuals, whereas the dissident view traces terror to the
men in the shadows (bankers and their subordinates in the
corporate, military, and intelligence worlds). An overview
of the preceding five essays is followed by the contention
that although conclusive proof for the dissident view had
already been articulated in this series, it is not a waste
of time to provide two additional proofs. The international
bankers and their agents in places like Washington DC,
London, Ottawa, Mexico City, Bogotá, or Paris, are
manifestly capable of any conspiratorial crime whatsoever;
hence, we can summarily dismiss the naïve belief that they
would not inflict terror on their own people: Their
culpability or innocence cannot be dismissed a priori but
must be decided on the basis of the available evidence. The
first reason for believing that the men in the shadows are
behind most 21st century terror involves the
question: Who benefits? Terror exerted an enormous toll from
its alleged perpetrators and their collaborators. Rulers
accused of terrorism, as well as their relatives and
associates, have been deposed, impoverished, incarcerated,
tortured, or lynched. Their countries have been demonized,
starved into submission, conquered, colonized, looted,
impoverished, handed over to psychopaths and sycophants,
fragmented, torn apart by a vicious divide-and-rule
strategy, and subjected to severe, long-lasting,
environmental degradation. For their part, the alleged
architects and perpetrators of terror have endured shattered
dreams, persecution, incarceration, torture, and death. The
argument that the terrorists were mainly interested in
wreaking havoc on the American economy and the dollar is
mistaken, although the USA and the dollar are indeed weaker
in late 2013 than they were in 2001. In fact, the possible
collapse does not merely involve a vastly disproportionate
response to the threat of terror, but is not caused by it at
all. Thus, those accused of terror have gained less than
nothing from their purported crimes. The men in the shadows,
by contrast, have made a killing. To begin with, the tacit
premise of the entire war on terror—that the bankers react
so violently to it because they care about us—is laughable.
These men are vastly richer now; they have been making
trillions selling death machines, and they have gained
access to vast oil and gas fields and other resources. They
have been able to prolong the life of their chief fiat
currency (the American dollar) and to divert public
attention from their heinous crimes. They have sown their
beloved seeds of chaos, discord, and misery the world over.
They used the war terror to justify their pre-2001 scheme of
economic and military conquest of the entire planet. As a
result of 21st century terror, the bankers are closer than
ever to their goals of merging Western countries into one
police state, subduing Russia and China, and destroying the
biosphere. They have used this war to justify the ongoing
stepwise conversion of American plutocracy into a
full-fledged Brave New World. For the rulers of the
state of Israel, in particular, the war on terror has been a
dream come true. The second reason for believing that the
men in the shadows are behind contemporary terror is that
the alleged terrorist strategy of killing innocent
bystanders, American and foreign, is not only morally
repulsive but also half-witted. It is inconceivable that
“terrorists” would resort to it for decades, miserably
shooting themselves in the foot, while a highly effective
and far less painful and costly strategy is on hand. To
bring the bankers and their puppets to their knees, a real
terrorist would have copied the bankers’ own astoundingly
successful strategy of bullying or killing powerful
opponents. Likewise, a real terrorist, especially if she
happened to be a Muslim, would have looked no farther than
her backyard and apply a conceptually similar ancient
variation: The brilliant intimidation/decapitation
strategy of Hassan Al Sabbah and his successors. This essay
then goes on to point out the irrelevance of the
Revolutionary’s Dilemma (the inhibition against killing
built into most people, even when confronted with
psychopathic killers) to this second argument. The essay
concludes with a brief survey of revolutionary strategies,
arguing that there is one, and only one–sordid but
inescapable–strategy that could realize humanity’s dreams
for a free, just, peaceful, and sustainable world.
Current postings of “A Bird’s Eye View of Contrived Terror”:
Table of Contents
1. On the Ignorance (or Mendaciousness) of Conspiracy Scoffers
2. A Few Comments on Our Terrible Normality
3. One Example of our Terrible Normality: The Divide and Rule Strategy
4. A Second Example of our Terrible Normality: The Bankers’ War on the Children of the World
5. The Bankers are not Content with Conspiracies and Genocides—Now and then they emerge out of the Shadows to Brag about their Misdeeds and Intentions
Logical Proof I. Who benefits?
1. Grapes of Wrath for “Terrorists”
A. Rulers Charged with Aiding and Abetting Terror
B. Countries Charged with Aiding and Abetting Terror
C. Alleged Architects and Perpetrators of Terror
D. Collapse-of-Empire Counterargument
a. Economic Collapse had been Premeditatedly Set in Motion Long Before 2001
b. Each and Every Inaction of our Rulers Suggests that they wish to Bring about Economic Collapse
c. Collapsing the Economy is a Time-Honored Strategy of the Bankers
d. Economic Collapse Can be Best Seen as a Stepping Stone in the Bankers’ Plan to Enslave the USA’s and the World’s People
E. Grapes of Wrath for Terrorists: Conclusion
2. Pastures of Plenty for Bankers
A. The Bankers Don’t Care about You–at all
B. The War on Terror Enriches the Bankers and their Allies
C. The War on Terror Distracts us from an Ongoing:
a. Vicious Class War
b. Descent to Slavery
c. Destruction of the Biosphere
D. The War on Terror Justifies the Bankers’ pre-2001 Scheme (through reliance, chiefly, on their Handmaidens in DC and London) of Economic and Military Conquest of the Entire Planet
E. The War on Terror Justifies the Stepwise Conversion of American Plutocracy into a Full-Fledged 1984
F. The War On Terror Serves as a Valuable Laboratory Exercise, an Experiment, from which the Men in the Shadows Draw Lessons about Preempting, Co-Opting, and Stifling Dissent and Revolution, Enslaving Humanity, and Destroying the Biosphere
G. For the Short-Sighted Rulers of Israel, the War on Terror is a Dream Come True
H. Conclusion of Logical Proof I
Logical Proof II. A Real Terrorist would have Resorted to the Well-Known and Astoundingly Effective Al Sabbah’s (or CIA’s) Intimidation/Decapitation Approach, not to the Self-Defeating Shotgun Approach of Killing Innocent Men, Women, and Children
1. In the Ancient World, Empires and Rulers Safeguarded their Power and Privileges by Assassinating Influential Opponents
2. In the Contemporary World too, Empires and Rulers Safeguard their Power and Privileges by Assassinating Influential Opponents
A. Noboru Takeshita of Japan
B. Martin Luther King of the USA
C. Rene Schneider and Salvador Allende of Chile
3. Assassinations Safeguard the Bankers’ Upside-Down World
4. The Al Sabbah Strategy
A. Preliminary Observations
B. Reasons for the Al Sabbah Revolt
C. The Capture of the Alamut Fortress
D. Al Sabbah’s Intimidation/Decapitation Strategy
E. Terror Revisited
F. The Revolutionary’s Dilemma Counterargument
Parting Words: The Al Sabbah Strategy
Selected Notes and References (links to some notes and references are only provided within the text)
The present sixth essay of “A Bird’s Eye View of Terror” puts the last nail in the coffin of the official view of terror.
My original plan for this essay involved a short essay. I forgot however what I myself had been preaching for a long time. That is, the outcome of a writing project cannot be determined in advance. Given the complexity and importance of this subject, brevity gave way to comprehensiveness.
Thus, this essay is written for readers who are commencing their ascent from the cave of political illiteracy and who are not yet familiar with key features of contemporary history. Other readers may wish to avail themselves of a shortcut: Consult the Summary and Table of Contents above and only read sections of interest to their own evolving worldview.
Two principles underlie this six-part series.
The first principle involves a commitment to holistic thinking. A problem as complex as the origins of terror can only be understood by pulling together insights and methodologies from a variety of disciplines and perspectives.
The second principle is inspired by one elementary feature of the natural sciences. In physics or geology, for instance, you often have two competing views of reality. Does water rise in a suction pump because nature abhors vacuum or because of atmospheric pressure? Is the earth 6,000 or 4,500,000,000 years old? To decide such issues, you reason, observe, and conduct experiments. As you move along, you ask: Is this line of reasoning, or observation, or experiment, more consistent with the official view or with its upstart challenger? At times you reach a point where you must discard the official view and embrace its competitor.
Likewise, when it comes to terror, two views compete for our allegiance. The official view ascribes terror, for the most part, to half-crazed fanatics who envy Americans their freedom and who resent America’s role as a champion of democracy around the globe. The dissident view traces most terror incidents to the American government and its masters, the men in the shadows (international bankers and their allies in the corporate, military, and death squad world).
Part II of this six-part series took a brief look at the matrix underlying state-sponsored terror. This matrix (i) leads us to the false belief that the USA was once free, peaceful, just, and sustainable; (ii) viciously undermines language (and hence, our ability to think clearly); (iii) limits our access to accurate information; and (iv) compels us to needlessly hedge our public discourse. This matrix also shifts our attention from the handful of families who control the world to the dual fictions of (v) front men as powerful political figures (e.g., president of the USA, chairman of the Federal Reserve) and (vi) countries as sovereign actors (e.g., the USA, France).
Part III tested the two contesting views of terror through just one example: the Gladio Conspiracy. This conspiracy—now a part of the officially-sanctioned historical record—involved killing hundreds of European civilians (“women, children, unknown people far from any political game”), the overthrow of democratically-elected governments, and assassinations of heads of state and other high-profile friends of the people. Gladio’s shock and awe strategy, its reliance on the mass media, bribes, blackmail, fascists, and agents provocateurs, sought “to discredit left-wing groups and politicians,” confuse and enfeeble the people, and cause mayhem. It thereby induced people to look to the very entity that terrorized them so—the state—for their security. The key take-home lesson from this part was: All things being equal, the known involvement of Western governments in Gladio suggests that it is these governments (and not fanatic Muslims and other “extremists”) that are behind the hyped wave of 21st century terror.
Part IV identified 19 general characteristics of 21st century terror in the USA, illustrating each characteristic with just one terror incident, the April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon Explosions. We now found ourselves on firmer grounds. The 19 characteristics in general, and the Boston explosions in particular, by themselves make a mockery of the official view and conclusively substantiate the dissident view. At this point we had to accept the ugly conclusion that the American government is the major purveyor of internal terror in the USA.
Part V highlighted two key patterns of American history: Launching wars on false pretexts and conducting a century-long assassination campaign against peaceful Americans and foreigners who posed a threat to the rule of the bankers. Although these two indisputable historical patterns do not prove the dissident view of terror, they are more compatible with this view than they are with its official rival.
Thus, logic, rules of evidence, observations, and experiments all led us to one conclusion: It is the bankers—acting through their vassals in Washington DC and other captive national governments—that are behind most contemporary terror in the USA. Massive corruption, Gladio (as one example of numerous other crimes of governments against their own people), 19 characteristics of terror that only make sense under the assumption of government authorship, false-flag operations leading to needless wars, and widespread programs of assassinations of political opponents, all forcefully give the lie to the official narrative. We have to thank the identical controllers of such seemingly-diverse governments as the USA, UK, and India—not fringe groups–for the 1993 Waco Massacre, Oklahoma City Bombing, 9/11, 7/7/2005 London City Bombings, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the 2013 Boston Marathon explosions, and random acts of terror here, there, and everywhere.
So far so good. An open-minded person with a functional brain and a holistic outlook must by now accept the reality of government-sponsored terror. And yet, I plan to put forward two additional arguments, logical in nature and extensive in scope, which independently and conclusively make the same case. This raises the questions: Do we need such overkill? Do we really need multiple confirmations of the dissident view?
I suspect we do:
These are the reasons that lead me to put forth two additional proofs of government-sponsored terror.
Since the bankers were demonstrably capable of Gladio-Europe, one suspects that they are capable of any crime whatsoever, including deliberately terrorizing America and the world. To be on the safe side though, this section offers additional documentation of the bankers’ moral degeneracy.
Before presenting the needed documentation, we must debunk one of the bankers’ most spectacular conspiratorial achievements–convincing us that they, our lily-white bankers and their allies, never plot. “Well, yes,” a CIA asset at CNN or Huntington Post might say, “Brutus and Cassius and their fellow oligarchs might have conspired to kill Julius Caesar. And yes, the bankers of 50 years ago might have set in motion the Gladio Conspiracy, killing thousands of innocents. But that, you see, happened such a long time ago. It has no possible relevance to the contemporary world. If you believe otherwise, I need not listen to what you have to say, consider the evidence, or think. You are an unbalanced tinfoil fanatic, and I am not going to stoop to your half-crazed level.”
Every time I hear an intelligent person utter the disclaimer “I’m not a conspiracy theorist but . . .” a Bertrand Russel’s refrain runs through my brain:
There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.
Perhaps the origins of the term “conspiracy theory” might help dispel its mesmerizing impact:
In January 1967, shortly after Jim Garrison in New Orleans had started his prosecution of the CIA backgrounds of the murder, the CIA published a memo to all its stations, suggesting the use of the term ‘conspiracy theorists’ for everyone criticizing the Warren Report findings. Until then the press and the public mostly used the term ‘assassination theories’ when it came to alternative views of the ‘lone nut’ Lee Harvey Oswald. But with this memo this changed and very soon ‘conspiracy theories’ became what it is until today: a term to smear, denounce and defame anyone who dares to speak about any crime committed by the state, military or intelligence services. Before Edward Snowden anyone claiming a kind of total surveillance of internet and phone traffic would have been named a conspiracy nut; today everyone knows better.
Think about this. Conspiracy scoffers are, always and everywhere, simply parroting a Death Squad mantra!
To set up the stage for our two logical proofs, I wish to go farther than debunking the fatuous conspiracy mantra. I want to show that our rulers are not only addicted to secret plots, but that they are perfectly capable of any crime whatsoever. Hence, we can summarily dismiss the naïve belief that they are incapable of terrorizing us.
I cannot of course fully substantiate this all-encompassing yet crucial view of history. Instead, let me offer a few quotes and a few illustrations. Here, to begin with, is Karl Popper–one of the most original political philosophers (and philosophers of science) of the 20th century:
There is no history of mankind, there is only an indefinite number of histories of all kinds of aspects of human life. And one of these is the history of political power. This is elevated into the history of the world. But this, I hold, is an offence against every decent conception of mankind. It is hardly better than to treat the history of embezzlement or of robbery or of poisoning as the history of mankind. For the history of power politics is nothing but the history of international crime and mass murder (including it is true, some of the attempts to suppress them). This history is taught in schools, and some of the greatest criminals are extolled as heroes.
“History,” says Kurt Vonnegut “read it and weep.” With a few notable exceptions, this is a precise summary of the historical record. Independent historians take criminality for granted and are awed by those rare episodes where decency occasionally prevailed, e.g., the Iroquois Confederation, most hunter-gatherer societies, or Athenian democracy.
Author Jack Finney asks:
We live on a planet well able to provide a decent life for every soul on it, which is all ninety-nine of a hundred human beings ask. Why in the world can’t we have it?
The few extant non-captive textbooks of ecology or economics confirm Finney’s observation. We can, if we wish, create, here on earth, a paradise of justice, peace, freedom, and sustainability.
Why indeed, can’t we have a decent life? The simple answer: the handful of bankers who parasitize humanity are content to sacrifice our happiness, our health, our spirituality, our ability to think critically and holistically, the future of our species itself, to temporarily achieve their megalomaniac goals of riches and power for themselves and destitution and subjection for the majority.
The bankers have managed the seemingly impossible: Manipulating us into acceptance of a “terrible normality.” Michael Parenti:
Through much of history the abnormal has been the norm. This is a paradox to which we should attend. Aberrations, so plentiful as to form a terrible normality of their own, descend upon us with frightful consistency.
The number of massacres in history, for instance, is almost more than we can record. There was the New World holocaust, consisting of the extermination of indigenous Native American peoples throughout the western hemisphere, extending over four centuries or more, continuing into recent times in the Amazon region. . . .
There was the slaughter of more than half a million socialistic or democratic nationalist Indonesians by the U.S.-supported Indonesian military in 1965, eventually followed by the extermination of 100,000 East Timorese by that same U.S.-backed military.
Consider the 78-days of NATO’s aerial destruction of Yugoslavia complete with depleted uranium, and the bombings and invasion of Panama, Grenada, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Western Pakistan, Afghanistan, and now the devastating war of attrition brokered against Syria. And as I write (early 2013), the U.S.-sponsored sanctions against Iran are seeding severe hardship for the civilian population of that country. . . .
Let us not overlook the ubiquitous corporate corruption and massive financial swindles, the plundering of natural resources and industrial poisoning of whole regions, the forceful dislocation of entire populations, the continuing catastrophes of Chernobyl and Fukushima and other impending disasters awaiting numerous aging nuclear reactors.
The world’s dreadful aberrations are so commonplace and unrelenting that they lose their edge and we become inured to the horror of it all. ‘Who today remembers the Armenians?’ Hitler is quoted as having said while plotting his ‘final solution’ for the Jews. Who today remembers the Iraqis and the death and destruction done to them on a grand scale by the U.S. invasion of their lands? William Blum reminds us that more than half the Iraq population is either dead, wounded, traumatized, imprisoned, displaced, or exiled, while their environment is saturated with depleted uranium (from U.S. weaponry) inflicting horrific birth defects.
What is to be made of all this? First, we must not ascribe these aberrations to happenstance, innocent confusion, and unintended consequences. Nor should we believe the usual rationales about spreading democracy, fighting terrorism, providing humanitarian rescue, protecting U.S. national interests and other such rallying cries promulgated by ruling elites and their mouthpieces.
The repetitious patterns of atrocity and violence are so persistent as to invite the suspicion that they usually serve real interests; they are structural not incidental. (italics are mine)
Just in case you still hold fast to the understandable artistic and literary proclivity to shine the light on beauty, decency, and sublimity, let me offer two additional examples of our terrible normality.
The first example focuses on a key strategy. Throughout their centuries-long rule of the West and its colonies, the international bankers and their agents in London, Washington, Paris, and elsewhere have implemented a malicious divide-and-rule strategy. Contemporary examples of this strategy are ethnic and religious strife in Iraq and Syria and the bankers’ attempts to foment racial discord in the USA.
The quote below explains the mechanics of this vicious British and American approach–in this instance, as practiced by their disciples and quislings in Pakistan:
For several years the military junta that had seized power in Pakistan and executed the democratically elected prime minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, had ruled the nation by dividing it. They’d exploited genuine grievances between ethnic and religious communities by inciting violent conflicts. They’d pitted the indigenous ethnic groups–particularly the Sindis, the Pashtuns, and the Punjabis–against the immigrants, known as Mohajirs, who’d streamed into the newly founded nation of Pakistan when it was partitioned from India. The army secretly supported extremists from the rival groups with weapons, money, and the judicious application of favours. When the riots that they’d provoked and fomented finally erupted, the generals ordered their police to open fire. Rage against police violence was then contained by the deployment of army troops. In that way the army, whose covert operations had created the bloody conflicts, was seen to be the only force capable of preserving order and the rule of law.
As massacres and revenge killings tumbled over one another with escalating brutishness, kidnappings and torture became routine events. Fanatics from one group seized supporters from another group, and inflicted sadistic torments on them. Many of those who were abducted died in that fearsome captivity. Some vanished, and their bodies were never found. And when one group or another became powerful enough to threaten the balance of the deadly game, the generals incited violent conflict within their group to weaken it. The fanatics then began to feed on themselves, killing and maiming rivals from their own ethnic communities.
Each new cycle of violence and vengeance ensured, of course, that no matter what form of government emerged or dissolved in the nation, only the army would grow stronger, and only the army could exercise real power.
Matters have only gotten worse since then:
Today, the US is more interested in destroying Middle Eastern countries than in propping up Asian and Latin American dictators. So it has refined its use of death squads. Instead of simply murdering anti-government activists to prop up an American-owned puppet dictator, the US now sponsors death squads on both sides of the political-religious divide. The purpose: Create a civil war to weaken the targeted nation.
It is common knowledge that wars lead to the death, starvation, slavery, or prostitution of millions of children. The bankers profit from this state of affairs, and they derive joy from the plight of the world’s children. That is why, plain and simple, these children languish and die. The two photos nearby warm the cockles of the bankers’ cold hearts.
Bankers’ delight: Childhood in Contemporary Gaza
Bankers’ delight: Childhood in Contemporary Iraq. Other examples of the bankers’ war on the world’s children include 1. 2013 Greece, where many children are starving. 2. Northern Japan, where, as had been clearly foreseen at the dawn of the nuclear age, countless children will suffer from a cancer epidemic and loss of homes—not because nuclear energy produces net energy (it doesn’t), nor because it could survive economically without massive government subsidies (it couldn’t), but because it generates profits for the few. 3. Syria, where already 7 thousand children died and 3 million were forced out of their homes. Here is what UNICEF—itself a bankers’ bastion—had to say about the 2013 plight of Syrian children: “What is at stake is nothing less than the survival and wellbeing of a generation of innocents. The youth of Syria are losing their homes, their family members and their futures. Even after they have crossed a border to safety, they are traumatized, depressed and in need of a reason for hope.”
At times, our rulers enjoy flaunting their crimes and malevolent intentions. Here is one example of their diabolical, in-your-face, arrogance. This example involves a gigantic mural which daily greets over 100,000 passengers at the Denver International Airport.
Second part of the mural, Children of the World Dream of Peace, Denver International Airport
Nearby is a reproduction of the second part of that mural, a mural whose contents and title were dictated to a great artist (for a fair price, naturally). The two parts, together, go under the paradoxical title of Children of the World Dream of Peace. One astute observer throws light on this odd title, and on this freakish second part of the mural:
The monster has awakened! This big and aggressive militaristic figure is dressed in a Nazi uniform (notice the symbol on the hat) with a face shaped like a gas mask. His hands are holding a rifle and a scimitar that is rather violently molesting the peace-bearing dove. On the left is depicted an endless lineup of crying parents holding their limp, dead baby. This is a truly atrocious painting, with no redeeming message or moral. The fact that this was displayed at the main gate of the largest airport of America, during the age of political correctness (the nineties) is totally aberrant. The militaristic figure is glorified and all-powerful, situated at the center of the action. It has regained its powers that it seemed to have lost after WWII. It is back in full force and it’s leading the way to a new holocaust.
Look closely at the people on the left and the dead children sleeping on bricks. There are no traces of violence on them. They’re simply devoid of life, as if they were poisoned by the deadly gas emanating from the rainbow above them. The monster, protected by his gas mask, is pointing the lineup of victims towards the letter on the bottom left.
A related example comes from one of the bankers’ main sources of power: their Federal Reserve Notes (miscalled dollars). Are they mocking us, or is it mere coincidence, that these notes bear the images of the bankers’ greatest enemies–Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, Jackson, and Kennedy–on the one hand, and of two of their dedicated supporters–Washington and Hamilton–on the other hand? Are they mocking us, or is it mere coincidence, that these Notes are loaded with eerie symbolism?
The real rulers of the western world are racketeers. In particular, they are certainly predisposed to commit the comparatively minor transgression (by their own loathsome standards) of terrorizing the American people and blaming innocents.
We are now ready for putting forward two additional logical proofs of the dissident view of terror.
To identify the victims and beneficiaries of terror, let us compile two balance sheets. The first would list the gains and losses incurred by rulers, countries, and individuals accused of terror. The second would list the gains and losses to their accusers.
When it comes to rulers, it should be noted that, as far as we can re-construct the historical record, no ruler has ever supported terrorism against the ruling clique of the USA—the bankers’ tall tales to the contrary notwithstanding.
PIC of USA flag
The reason for this is elementary—you’d be crazy to provoke a country (the USA) that lives by H-bombs, white phosphorus, depleted uranium, and genocides; that is far stronger than your own country; that has a complacently misinformed and uninformed populace; that has a record of unprovoked invasions and assassinations of political leaders longer than a camel’s tail; that specializes in false-flag wars (see Part V); and that is looking for any pretext whatsoever to invade your country, rob it blind, and murder you.
There is a saying in Arabic, “the hand that you can’t break, kiss it and wish it broken.” It defies reason to believe that opportunistic heads of state possessing oil or anything else the bankers want, would not live by that pragmatic rule.
Thus, the charge of terror defies both common sense and the known historical record. But let us pretend that helpless rulers had been mad enough to support terror operations against the USA. And then let us inquire into the fate of a few randomly-chosen leaders falsely accused of supporting terror (or running drugs, or being communists, or being pleasingly plump).
Did Saddam Hussein of Iraq benefit from his alleged ties to terrorism? The answer is as straightforward as it is simple. The last three and a half years of his life were sheer hell. Imperial forces murdered his two adult sons and 14-year-old grandson. His three daughters had to flee for their lives and seek mercy and conditional asylum in Jordan, itself a colony of the bankers. His entire lifework–including a brutal dictatorship and, strangely enough, some significant improvements in the lives of most Iraqis–is in ruins. And this once-powerful man had to hide for nine months like a mole in a hole and to depend on the charity of his former subjects. He was then chased out of his hole, with his captors–the very people who arranged his ascent to power and who inveigled him into a disastrous conflict with Iran–making sure that his humiliation and unkempt visage reached every corner of the world. There followed a brutal incarceration, daily humiliations, and a kangaroo trial. He was not even allowed to choose the manner of his death (he wanted to be shot). His American captors and their stooges deliberately taunted him and perhaps tortured him on his last day on earth. They proceeded to hang him, then repeatedly stabbed him. Such is the fate of national leaders accused of terror and lacking deliverable nuclear weapons.
Muammar Gaddafi of Libya provides another example of a head of state charged with aiding and abetting terror. His rule (a mixed blessing for his countrymen), misfortune, and the fates of his family, supporters, and clan, closely resemble those of Saddam Hussein.
Our final example is another “terrorist,” Mullah Mohammed Omar, Afghanistan’s de facto head of state from 1996 to 2001. In late 2011, the bankers and their flunkeys in Washington DC and Madison Avenue blamed one ex-CIA asset, Osama Bin Laden, for the 9/11 attack–a charge which, surprisingly, Bin Laden himself denied. Since at the time said Bin Laden was residing in Afghanistan, the bankers clamored for his immediate extradition. Omar agreed. To save face, he reasonably asked the bankers for evidence that Bin Laden indeed masterminded the notorious 9/11 tragedy.
Let me note in passing that the bankers declined to furnish evidence because such evidence did not exist and because their goal, long before 9/11, had been the subjugation and disintegration of Afghanistan in particular and the Middle East in general. Captive historians (the sad, vast, majority of academic historians) write disgraceful treatises on the causes of naked aggression, rarely admitting the obvious. The legendary fabulist Aesop, writing some 26 centuries ago, was more honest (my improvised rendition):
A hungry wolf, encountering a stray lamb, said: “A year ago you offended me.” The lamb sadly bleated: “That’s impossible sir, I am less than one-year old.” Well then, said the Wolf, “You are grazing in my pasture.” “No sir,” replied the Lamb, “I haven’t yet tasted grass.” “You drank from my well,” retorted the wolf.
PIC 'wolf and lamb'
“No,” exclaimed the frightened Lamb, “I haven’t yet started to drink water, for my mother’s milk is both food and drink to me.” At that point the wolf killed the lamb and ate him, saying to himself, “Well! I shall not go hungry, even though the lamb proved me wrong.”
Moral: Villains use language to disguise their intentions. If proven wrong, they will come up with yet another linguistic subterfuge. If consistently proven wrong, they will slaughter their victims anyway.
One difference between this wolf and the bankers is that he, at some point, drops the pretensions. Another difference is that the wolf is really hungry and must eat to survive. The hankering of the well-fed bankers’ for pounds of human flesh, on the other hand, betrays a misconception about the meaning of life.
Returning to Omar: the bankers forced Omar to go underground and lead a national liberation movement. Unquestionably, the transformation from a head of state to a fugitive was not one that Omar is happy about. Nor does he view favorably the bankers’ offer to print, naturally out of thin air and at our inflationary expense, 10 million Federal Reserve Notes to any backstabber willing to betray him.
Such personal tragedies, however, never satisfy the bankers’ vindictiveness towards those stranded between them and their objectives. In their world, the sins of a man are visited on his relatives. So the bankers bombed Omar’s house on October 2001, killing his 10-year-old son, his uncle, and perhaps other family members.
The next question is: Do countries framed for terror fare better than Hussein, Gaddafi, or Omar?
As an illustration, let us visit Iraq. In some ways, the bankers were right in recognizing Saddam as a bona fide member of their very own Club of Psychopaths. And yet, for the majority, life in Iraq, before the American-instigated Iraq/Iran Wars, and before multiple imperial invasions and sanctions, was tolerable. Here is how the bankers’ Wikipedia describes Saddam’s positive accomplishments:
The desire for stable rule in a country rife with factionalism led Saddam to pursue both massive repression and the improvement of living standards.
Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it. Ever concerned with broadening his base of support among the diverse elements of Iraqi society and mobilizing mass support, he closely followed the administration of state welfare and development programs.
At the center of this strategy was Iraq’s oil. On 1 June 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, dominated the country’s oil sector. A year later, world oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 energy crisis, and skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda.
Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the ‘National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy’ and the campaign for ‘Compulsory Free Education in Iraq,;” and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
With the help of increasing oil revenues, Saddam diversified the largely oil-based Iraqi economy. Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign helped Iraq’s energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas. Before the 1970s, most of Iraq’s people lived in the countryside and roughly two-thirds were peasants. This number would decrease quickly during the 1970s as global oil prices helped revenues to rise from less than a half billion dollars to tens of billions of dollars and the country invested into industrial expansion.
Above all, Iraq in those years was livable. Ethnic discord was at a minimum and know-it-all clerics were kept out of the political arena. Birth defects, cancers, and genetic mutations were as rare in Iraq as in most other countries. And, despite oppression and corruption, the vast majority could go about its business, and life, unmolested.
The charge of terrorism and its gory aftermath would bring this modicum of livability to an end. Here is one summary of the price Iraqis paid, up to 2007 only, for Hussein’s link to terrorism:
Entire cities have been reduced to rubble, garrisons, misery, and chaos. Vast tracts of land are contaminated, and meaningful jobs are as scarce as hen’s teeth. The neo-colonialists have shrewdly resorted to a divide-and-conquer policy. As in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and scores of other places, they have fomented a bloody civil war, complete with extreme sectarian violence and government-sponsored death squads. Iraqi Arabs are daily humiliated, tortured, and incarcerated by the neo-colonialists and their quislings, to the point that some ordinary men and women prefer a Samson-style death to the living hell that is now Iraq. Iraqi scientists and intellectuals have been systematically murdered and silenced by the occupying forces and their allies. Fear is in the air, everywhere.
The numbers themselves defy belief. The USA was instrumental in bringing Saddam Hussein to power, and is thus indirectly and partially responsible for his crimes and misadventures. Iraq’s war with Iran was partially engineered by the USA and its weapons’ manufacturers, sustaining a cataclysm that may have caused, to both sides combined, some 1,000,000 deaths and 2,000,000 injuries. The subsequent USA-imposed economic strangulation (1990-2003) has been probably responsible for the death of an additional 1,000,000 Iraqis, and, since 2003, the invasion and occupation of Iraq caused the loss of some 600,000 lives. The number of maimed and injured since 2003 is, most likely, even higher than 600,000. The number of refugees probably exceeds 1,000,000. Thus, over the past 26 years or so, as a result of Anglo-American interventions and their shock and awe tactics, perhaps 7% of the Iraqi people have been directly or indirectly murdered, another 7% might have been physically injured, and yet another 7% forced into exile. Moreover, most surviving Iraqis have suffered psychological traumas and shell shocks that might haunt them for the rest of their lives. To add insult to injury, many of the victims have been children and other innocent bystanders. One can legitimately argue about these order-of-magnitude estimates and the extent to which these upheavals slowed down population growth in Iraq, in part because one must infer these very estimates from what the killers themselves choose to divulge. Notwithstanding such uncertainties, the deliberate, virtually unilateral, carnage is on a sufficiently large scale to be considered genocide.
The men in the shadows had deliberately sown the seeds of Civil War which, by 2013, is as self-sustaining as their beloved nuclear chain reactions:
According to the U.N., by 2013, for instance,
There were 928 civilians killed in July (including 204 civilian police), and 2,109 civilians were injured (including 338 civilian police). A further 129 members of the Iraqi security forces were killed and 217 injured.
We may note in passing that the U.N.–now another colony of the bankers–makes no effort to explain why Iraq was stable when left alone, and why it is ready to explode now.
An Iraqi doctor explains an even worse legacy–and this one is practically forever:
After the start of the Iraq war, rates of cancer, leukemia and birth defects rose dramatically in Najaf. The areas affected by American attacks saw the biggest increases. We believe it’s because of the’ illegal’ weapons like depleted uranium [or some other known poison] that were used by the Americans. When you visit the hospital here you see that cancer is more common than the flu.
We could go on, but the point has already been made: Non-nuclear ountries denounced of terrorism face total ruin. According to one source, “the worst catastrophe ever to hit the Muslim world” was the Mongol invasions of the 12th and 13th centuries, invasions characterized by blood, ruin, and pyramids of skulls.” We must, if we are honest, admit to ourselves that the bankers are far worse than the bestial Khans. The worst catastrophe to hit the Muslim world, a catastrophe that is still unfolding, is the bankers’ no-holds-barred robberies, genocides, engineered fragmentations, and environmental ravages.
There are two, and only two, concepts that can be used to describe the leaders of any country lacking deliverable nuclear weapons and yet choosing to defy the bankers by killing a handful of non-combatants: non-existent or insane.
We must now ask: what was the personal cost to “terrorists,” besides accomplishing less than nothing?
Many paid the ultimate price. Of the survivors, many ended up in some inquisitorial dungeon. Since virtually all of these prisoners are innocent, they have never been given a fair trial. Instead, wherever they are in the Death Squads’ (CIA’s, FIB’s, MI6’s ... ) international gulag, they have been tortured, violated, and humiliated to the point that most would prefer death to the horrors inflicted upon them by the bankers. As far as I can judge from afar, after spending a few months anywhere in the death squads’ international torture archipelago (e.g., Guantánamo), hell would be a vacation.
Some of the stories that emerge in both the alternative and corporate press defy belief, even for those of us who think they know the bankers and their ways.
One typical example. The American Death Squads needed a 9/11 confession from someone, as well as a confession of a multitude of other self-inflicted wounds. And so they are on record confessing to having committed the international crime of waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed???? a “total of 160 times.”
They needed so many sessions, I suspect, because they enjoyed inflicting pain. Perhaps also Mohammed is a man exceptional fortitude and courage, and it might have taken that long to get him to confess to crimes he had never committed.
Here is how Wikipedia describes waterboarding:
Waterboarding is a form of torture in which water is poured over cloth covering the face and breathing passages of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage, and death. Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years. The term water board torture appears in press reports as early as 1976. The captive’s face is usually covered with cloth or some other thin material, and the subject is immobilized on his/her back. Interrogators pour water onto the face over the breathing passages, causing an almost immediate gag reflex and creating the sensation for the captive that he is drowning.
In the fall of 2007, it was widely reported that the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice had authorized the procedure among enhanced interrogation techniques. Senator John McCain noted that in World War II, the United States military hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American prisoners of war.
And waterboarding is just one of the bankers’ delectable pastimes. Solitary confinement, constant lighting, extreme cold or heat, violation of privacy and religious convictions, beating, indifference, threatening to kill or harm family members, being a few other choice methods. And all this without a jury trial, without trying to establish innocence or guilt, without trying to find out who the real terrorists are.
At this point, a perceptive reader might reasonably accuse me of mistaking the trees for the forest. The rulers of terrorist countries as well as the architects and perpetrators of terror knew in advance that terror might crush them. That, however, was a price they were willing to pay. All along, their goal was to weaken the USA internally by forcing it to spend trillions on such things as munitions, occupations of foreign lands, veteran benefits, and the elaborate paraphernalia of a police state.
There is no denying that such enfeeblement is actually taking place. Thanks in small part to lavish spending on “terror,” the American economy and the dollar are at risk (the bankers’ lies about a “recovery” notwithstanding). That collapse, should it materialize, might usher the Greater Depression. Hence, this line of reasoning suggests, terrorism is not as self-destructive as it might appear on first sight. It’s like Sampson at the temple of Gaza: You die to impair your enemies.
Unlike any other strategy ascribed to terrorists, this argument cannot be readily dismissed; at least on the face of it, it makes sense. A genuine run-of-the-mill terrorist might actually subscribe to the mistaken notion that his actions would bring about, or precipitate, collapse. In turn, such a collapse might accomplish, a terrorist might hope, his long-term goal of terminating the political, economic, or military occupations of his country e.g., the USA, or Greece, or Colombia.
Nonetheless, this argument is mistaken. The alleged architects of terror must know that the vastly disproportionate sums spent by the USA on its hundreds of overseas military bases, endless wars, and an internal security apparatus that would put Nazi Germany to shame, have nothing to do with terror and everything to do with the bankers’ plan to enrich and empower themselves at our expense.
Here are a few telltale signs that the collapse had been planned and embarked upon before 9/11:
1. The Glass-Steagall Act was passed in 1933 specifically to prevent a repeat of bankers-engineered collapses such as the Great Depression. Yet, under pressure from the bankers, the dismantling of that Act began already in the 1960s. By 1999 it was officially dead–thereby knowingly lighting the fuse for the coming implosion.
2. Long before 2001, the process of deliberately and treacherously stripping the USA of its industry had begun. Such a program of de-industrialization is bound to create, among other things, enormous balance of payments deficits for the USA. The USA, once the industrial powerhouse of the world, can still trade with the world–by printing Federal Reserve Notes and brutalizing countries which refuse to exchange real goods for green bills cut out of whole cloth. But this, clearly, is unsustainable.
3. For a long time, every astute observer understood that American policies were dictated by a small cabal of bankers and their allies. Many presidents warned us about this. For instance, Franklin Roosevelt observed that “a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.” We know, also, how that element maintains control–through such despicable tactics as sunshine bribery of elected officials and judges, near-monopoly of the mass media and schools, and selective smearing, incarceration, and killing of influential opponents. That is why every major 21st century policy decision is made by the bankers for the bankers, to the detriment of the nation. Instead of trying to save the American economy by ending these corrupting influences, the bankers did everything they could–not merely to preserve these influences, but to enhance them. All along, they must have known that such a process is likely to end in the pauperization of the vast majority, economic contraction, and environmental cataclysm.
4. At any time during the past 60 years or so, thanks to energy conservation (e.g., passing a law that every new car driven in America rely on available technologies to yield 100 miles to the gallon), the USA could cease oil imports, improve its citizens’ and bank balances, vastly enhance its industrial and economic efficiency, and halt such environmental crimes as fracking, global warming, and nuclear power. Conservation in turn could serve as a bridge to renewable technologies which could revitalize the entire American economy. And yet, our captains of banking steadfastly refused to take that road. This again can be best interpreted as either indifference to the long-term economic health of the USA or a deliberate effort to undermine it.
Would you, if you were a terrorist, sacrifice your life to help your chief enemies achieve their goals?
We know perfectly well how the economy and the dollar could be saved, even at this late hour. We could, for example, restore the Glass-Steagall Act, protect American industry, put an end to sunshine bribery (campaign financing and revolving doors), and put an end to monopolies and oligopolies of every stripe–in the media, education, industry, or banking. We could bail out the people themselves, instead of stealing $5,000 from every American and handing the money to the bankers who criminally engineered the ongoing financial crisis to begin with. We could, today, abolish the Federal Reserve (in reality, a private consortium of mostly foreign bankers pursuing their own interests, exclusively) and re-assert the constitutionally-mandated provision that the people themselves issue their money. We could negotiate world disarmament, cut the “defense” budget by 99%, and convert the CIA, NSA, DIA, Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force into a modern Civilian Conservation Core. We could equally share leisure and work, continuing a long tradition of reducing the workweek, a tradition that was criminally cut short by 1945. We could abolish the fractional system of reserve banking in its entirety. Instead of giving every spare dollar we have to bankers and generals, we could restore our infrastructure. We could re-industrialize America by placing tariffs on imports. We could fire the crooks who got us into this mess in the first place and replace them with intelligent humanitarians. We could try to avert a biospheric cataclysm by implementing such painless steps as energy conservation.
The economy and its physical and biological foundations could be saved–but they aren’t. Instead, every step the bankers take can be best understood within the larger framework of engineered collapse.
Over and over again throughout American history, bankers brought about misery and suffering to the USA’s and world’s people in order to amass ever more power and wealth.
One example will suffice. Ellen Brown recounts the confrontation between President Andrew Jackson (also, regrettably, a notorious ethnic cleanser of Native Americans and a proud slave-owner) and Nicholas Biddle, president of the privately-owned Federal Reserve Bank of those days (then called “The Second US Bank”). Jackson understood already then that the “issue which has swept down the centuries, and which will have to be fought sooner or later, is the people versus the banks.” Jackson correctly referred to the international bankers who owned America’s central bank as a “den of vipers” and “a hydra of corruption,” and proceeded to assert the vital right of the people to issue their own currency.
Biddle in turn threatened to bring about an economic depression if Jackson persisted in not re-chartering the privately-owned parasitic central bank:
Biddle proceeded to make good on his threat by sharply contracting the money supply. Old loans were called in and new ones were refused. A financial panic ensued, followed by a deep economic depression.
This is simply what privately-controlled central banks do–creating and profiting from boom and bust cycles. This historical pattern raises the possibility that the 2008 near-collapse of the American economy, and the future possible collapse of the world’s economy and the dollar, have been likewise engineered by the bankers. Terrorists, if they existed, would have not helped their enemies achieve their goals.
In the past, the bankers engineered depressions to empower and enrich themselves. Now their actions suggest that the current depression has an additional, far more sinister, aim:
You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized. . . . The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. . . . Always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.
In 1933 the bankers, nominally led by Preston Bush, conspired “to overthrow FDR and implement a fascist dictatorship in the U.S. based around the ideology of Mussolini and Hitler.” That direct approach failed, thanks in part to the heroic Major General Smedley Butler.
They had apparently learned their lessons, and are now implementing the boiling frog version of a fascist coup.[18b] They had, for instance, installed the unrepentant son and then grandson of that fascist conspirator in the White House. They have likewise tightened their control on the media, economy, and educational system. They provoked and then launched the war on terror and have milked it for any drop of fascism they could get.
Economic and monetary crash, they might feel, would provide just enough shock and awe, just enough disaster capitalism, to enable them to put the final touches to their totalitarian takeover.
To see how far they have gone in just 12 years, let us recall the heartbreaking case of Bradley Manning. When this courageous soldier exposed the vampire-like qualities of the American military, it is he who was thrown into a dungeon for three years without a trial, tortured to (or beyond?) the point of losing his mind, and then sentenced to 35 years in prison following a conviction in a jury-less kangaroo court–while the real criminals walked free.
Here is what his mother saw in 2011, on her last visit:
He was sitting on the other side of a glass partition and when I walked in I heard the sound of the chains round his hands and feet before I saw him. Most of the time [Bradley and his mom] sat in silence but held each other’s gaze. She didn’t get to hug him but was able to tell him she loved him.
Afterwards . . . she said: “You wouldn’t treat a bloody animal like they’re treating Bradley.”
The bankers are pragmatic. On the road to economic collapse and Orwell’s dystopia, they expect social unrest and perhaps even a revolution. So, under the guise of the war on terror, they are getting ready:
It is common knowledge that the Department of Homeland Security has been preparing for combat through the purchase of instruments of war. These include: Approximately 1.6 billion hollow-point bullets, 7,000 fully automatic assault weapons, 2,700 MRAP (Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected) vehicles, and an increasing number of military-style unmanned aerial drones.
Make no mistake. These are weapons of war. So, who is DHS planning on waging a war against?
The averred architects of terror would have to see that their actions serve as an excuse for turning the USA into a totalitarian hellhole. They would have to sense that democracy, and openness, and an informed public opinion, provide a measure of protection for the countries the “terrorists” love and the ideals they cherish. They would have to see that there are limits to malice and lawlessness, even in quarter-baked democracies–limits set by the common decencies of the people themselves. The “terrorists” would have to see that it is only the restraints of public opinion that have so far prevented the bankers from turning the “terrorists” and their countries into radioactive wastelands.[6,21]
Would you, if you were a terrorist, die to enrich and empower your real enemies and give them the opening they crave for a no-holds-barred colonization of the entire world?
Thus, backers of the official view of terror find themselves against a wall: It turns out that the set of “victims of terror” is comprised of three overlapping subsets. The first obvious subset consists of ordinary human beings hailing from all corners of the world who died, got injured, or lost loved ones as a result of terror. The second subset consists of the world’s people, whose enslavement and impoverishment are justified by the suffering of the first subset. The third subset is comprised of countries accused of terror, their rulers and ordinary citizens, and the alleged terrorists themselves. If we accept the operational definition of insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’” we are in turn led to this denouement: Either the rulers of these countries and the alleged terrorists are insane–or else they have never been involved in terror.
Indeed, would anyone choose to kill fellow victims of the bankers (e.g., ordinary Americans, Britons, Spaniards, Israelis, or Indians), achieving less than nothing, and paying for such astounding failures with her life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness? Would anyone continue to engage in such a strategy for years and years after its astonishingly miserable record becomes apparent? Would anyone shoot herself in the foot, over and over again, thereby hoping to improve her long jump record?
Since almost all alleged terrorists–at least until the Death Squads (CIA ...) get hold of them–are apparently sane, their actions, by their very nature, defy common sense. All things being equal, we must abandon the theory that those whose cause and their persons suffered most from terror are its perpetrators.
We must look elsewhere for the instigators of terror. These instigators, after so many years, must be its bona fide beneficiaries. The question then becomes: Who gains from terror?
Before showing how the bankers gained from the war on terror, we need to dismiss a key unstated premise of that war. That is, that our owners care about us. They are, they imply, so outraged by the deaths of a few innocent Americans, that they are willing to sacrifice trillions of our dollars and hundreds of thousands of our sons and daughters to protect us. Nay, our owners are so preoccupied about our safety, they are willing to sacrifice our Constitution, our privacy, our freedom to travel unmolested, and our right to bear arms.
Is there anyone out there naïve enough to believe them when they shed tears for two dead Americans and one Chinese woman in Boston? Aren’t these the same people who are indifferent to mostly-avoidable workplace accidents in the USA which daily claim 18 lives (6 times the Boston count and, adjusted for a smaller population, several times the Norwegian count) and 11,000 injuries (42 times the Boston count)? Didn’t they knowingly and needlessly expose their own soldiers to Agent Orange and depleted uranium? Aren’t they responsible for the millions that will prematurely die, over the next centuries, as a result of the ongoing calamity at the Fukushima nuclear power complex (whose sole goal, from the very beginning, was to make money, not to generate net energy)? Didn’t they allow cancer rates to at least needlessly double in the last two generations? Didn’t they pointlessly drag Americans to World War I? Didn’t they purposely sacrifice the American sailors of the USS Maine and Liberty? Don’t they routinely mix neurotoxins in our children’s vaccines? Don’t they scandalously fudge inflation numbers so that they can rob our needy seniors of half of their retirement money?
George Carlin saw it all already in 2005:
It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it. ... The game is rigged, and nobody seems to notice. ... They don’t care about you–at all.
Since the implied reason for the war on terror (the bankers care about us) is palpably false, we must look elsewhere for the causes of that war. The discussion below unmasks the real reasons for, and the real perpetrators and beneficiaries of, terror.
Before delving specifically into the war on terror, we need to remind ourselves that all modern wars are a gold mine for the bankers.
We owe one truthful depiction of war to Smedley Butler, one of America’s most decorated generals. Among other things, Butler single-handedly deferred the arrival of sunshine fascism to America’s shores by three generations. Unlike toadies Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Patton, Butler stood by his own veterans (e.g., during the brutal suppression of the 1932 Bonus Expeditionary Force). He did all this and more at a great personal cost to himself (among other things, he died, like almost all influential friends of the American people, prematurely and under suspicious circumstances).
And here is what this unsung hero had to say about wars, circa 1935:
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows. . . .
Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people — didn’t one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn’t much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let’s look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent. . .
Or, let’s take [the bankers-owned] United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad. . . .
And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war [World War I]. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. . . .
Who provides the profits — these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them — in taxation. . .
But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.
If you don’t believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran’s hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men — men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago.
Change some of the names above, and you would have to concede that, if anything, war, and the war on terror, are an even greater racket in 2013 (with the bankers again leading the murder of crows) than they had been in 1935. A couple of examples should convince anyone that nothing has changed, that someone benefits from the War on Terror–and that someone is a banker or a fellow traveler, not a Chechen, a Saudi Arabian, a homegrown American terrorist—or you.
Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil. . . . Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq’s domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms. ... For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world’s largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. ... Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with losers: the Iraqi people and all those who spilled and lost blood so that Big Oil could come out ahead.
Another confirmation from the bankers’ own media:
Since 2002, arms sales among the 100 largest providers of military equipment and services have increased 60%.
The bankers derive yet another benefit from the terror scam. True, most people lack the combination of courage, rationality, holistic thinking, decency, and compassion to see through the bankers’ ploys. Still, the bankers’ crimes against humanity are so downright injurious to the majority, the possibility always lurks that the people catch on and use the bankers’ guillotines against them. To avert such admittedly unlikely scenario, the bankers must keep the number of politically literate persons to an absolute minimum. This goal can in turn be served by distractions. Contrived terror provides one such distraction.
Three examples should suffice.
The bankers hype the war on terror and fill our brains with fear and hate, making us oblivious to the fact that the real war is taking places in our cities, factories, and farms.
Around 80 percent of all Americans deal with joblessness, near poverty, or reliance on welfare at some point in their lives. AP notes that inequality is going through the roof: ‘An increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor and loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs [are the likely] reasons for the trend.'
Daisy Luther asks: “Did you know that ... the day of the [Boston] Marathon, Obama signed a law that makes it easier for members of Congress and their staffers to engage in insider trading? There’s a reason that most politicians are rich, and it’s not generally because they’re just lucky.”
Indeed, dozens of such questions present themselves in this context. For instance,
Did you know that, by relying on a mendacious inflation index, the government is stealing, every month, half the money seniors put into the social security fund throughout their working lives?
Did you know, for that matter, that the bankers stole the money from that fund?
Did you know that they stole your gold?
Did you know that you’d be much wealthier had the Federal Reserve never been created?
Besides making the spiteful bankers richer and stronger, the war on terror diverts our attention from America’s daily march towards 1984. Desperate, frightened, chemically-contaminated and impoverished people, are more likely to prefer paternalism and empty promises of safety to freedom.
Or did you know, for that matter, that the bankers are perfectly willing—in a order to advance their power and riches—to risk human extinction? Here is one minor example of psychopathy in action, copied from the May 2013 entry of an environmental calendar:
Mountaintop Purge: At least 500 ancient mountains are gone, thousands of miles of river and drinking water have been poisoned, and significant portions of the world’s most biologically diverse forests have been destroyed, all because of mountaintop removal for coal mining. Entire forests are torn out, all layers of earth and topsoil are removed, and explosives are detonated, blasting as much as 400 vertical feet of mountaintop to expose the coal seams underneath. Today, burning coal for energy is the single largest source of global-warming pollution in the world.
Now multiply this by 1,000 and you begin to get a picture of what the bankers are doing to this planet. Taken together, Frankenstein monsters like mountaintop removals, nuclear demons, nanotechnology, genetic engineering—to name a few—will probably end up destroying the species that dared apply them. If the world’s people (including some soldiers and spooks) ever find out what the bankers are doing to Mother Earth, the way they are steadily undermining everyone’s health and future, they might lynch the bankers. What better way, then, of distracting would-be green defenders of the earth than the war on terror?
Thus, the war on terror–along with thousands of other diversions and lies–makes us take for granted the idiotic belief that the prosperity of bankers–and such mendacious and meaningless statistical concoctions as the gross national product–are more important than the biosphere itself.
The bankers (=the architects of America’s domestic and foreign policies since the days of Andrew Jackson) made it clear, one year before the 9/11 tragedy, that such an event was precisely what was required for achieving their scheme of world conquest (they used the euphemism “transformation” to convey the idea):
The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.
Reflect on what these pompous Genghis Khans are implying here. They know better than most people that America deliberately provoked and welcomed the attack on Pearl Harbor (see Part V of this series). As we have seen, Roosevelt’s masters wanted war, and got it—by any means necessary. So here is an encryption of their message (which was addressed especially to bankers, corporate honchos, generals, and spooks): “We can’t wait forever for the peace-loving American cattle to join us. After all, these lowlifes might decline to pay for our ambition of obscene riches and increased power with their lives, dollars, and few remaining freedoms. Let us, therefore, have the courage of our war-loving ancestors, sacrifice the lives of a few thousands sheep in human form, and thereby catalyze the ‘transformation.’”
This vicious plan is rarely acknowledged by its practitioners. However, now and then a word or two oozes out of their beaks, fully confirming the vital role terror plays in this plan. Sharmine Narwani:
1. A 2006 State Department cable that bemoans Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s strengthened position in Syria outlines actionable plans to sow discord within the state, with the goal of disrupting Syrian ties with Iran. The theme? ‘Exploiting’ all ‘vulnerabilities’ [and suggesting, among other things, playing] ‘on Sunni fears of Iranian influence.’
2. In 2013, influential former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger openly advocated redrawn borders along sectarian, ethnic, tribal or national lines that will shrink the political/military reach of key Arab states and enable the west to reassert its rapidly-diminishing control over the region.
3. As usual, Israeli strategists are more outspoken than their American counterparts. By 1982, long before launching the “war on terror,” they had already spelled out its goal of redrawing “the Mideast into small warring cantons that would never again be able to threaten the Jewish state’s regional primacy. Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Arabian Peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan.”
Thirty years later, that nightmare describes the world. Narawani warns: “Arabs and Muslims need to start becoming keenly aware of this ‘small state’ third option, else they will fall into the dangerous trap of being distracted by detail while larger games carve up their nations and plunge them into perpetual conflict.”
Seen from this perspective, the War on Terror has already achieved more than even the bankers thought was possible. Formerly quasi-independent oil-rich Iraq is now a bankers’ colony, as is strategically-placed Afghanistan. Libya’s oil, water, and gold fell into their hands. The process continues–one or a few countries at a time. They have strengthened or established military and economic beachheads throughout the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Latin America, setting the stage for a stepwise economic or military conquest.
Partially under the cover of the War on Terror, they proceeded apace in fostering terrorism in China and Russia, encircling both countries, and setting the stage for these countries’ surrender or nuclear annihilation.
The grandparents of our present rulers (e.g., Preston Bush, father of President Bush I) failed to bring Nazism to America’s shores in the 1930s. Their descendants are now actively pursuing this dream. This time they have opted for the boiling frog approach, instead of an outright coup.
If you are not convinced yet, ask yourself: What happened to freedom of speech in the USA since the war on terror began? Why are the second and fourth amendments under attack? Whence the vicious war on whistle blowers? What is the point of surveillance of each and every American? Why are they torturing and killing American citizens at will, not bothering to go through the motions of trial by jury? Why are we being molested at airports, checkpoints, and border crossings? Why can “cops take away your cash, car, or house — even if you’re never convicted of a crime”? Who really killed Pat Tillman, Seal Team Six, Aaron Swartz, Michael Hastings, and so many others? Why is our justice system falling apart? Why isn’t the judiciary branch defending the constitution? Why perpetual wars? Why growing income inequality? Why is one man (John Williams of Shadowstats.com) providing more reliable information about the US economy than an entire legion of well-bribed government statisticians? Why so many cases of police brutality? Why the open season on our dogs? Why are the police being militarized? Why can’t we film daily incidents of police brutality? Why can’t we sell raw milk?
That is what the bankers seek, a weakened USA whose surviving people are bereft of liberty, tranquility, and prosperity. That is clearly, and unmistakably, our future–and the war on terror lifted the lid of this odious Pandora Box.
Richard Cottrell views each and every terror incident as a “cynically calculated rehearsal.” The bankers have been in the democracy-usurping business for centuries, and they do not like to take chances. After all, a miscalculation might bring the wrath of a new Al Sabbah Brigade (see below) upon them. Hence, before shredding whatever is still left of America’s constitution and democracy, they must be sure that all will work according to plan:
“The aim is to be able to lock down America (or anywhere else). Urgent need: a script. The powers that be decide on a real time live lab exercise to discover the mechanics.
“Needs to know include:
– How fast planners can shut down and gain control of a very large and complex city.
– How the population might react when subjected to the first total shut down America has ever witnessed (bearing in mind no such thing happened after Oklahoma, 9/11, Madrid, 7/7 in London et al, so the ‘lessons’ learned are obviously portable).
– How ghoulish the strike must be – preferably aimed at innocents enjoying themselves. Pick a profile event where foreigners are present, such as Boston’s marathon tourists. Location, location, location as they say in the real estate trade.
– How willingly will the population knuckle under and comply with complete cop and military rule, no transport, emergency services, people confined to their homes under fiat order, etc. Martial law in all but name with no legit edict.
“Next it is very important to discover how fast you could subdue a large segment of the population and impose martial law, how much will you share with pliant and obedient sections of the media in advance and in the subsequent cover up. No messy shoot-ups.
“Using this live open-air laboratory, study and note very carefully how people in the rest of America react, not excluding foreign reactions.
“Then gauge carefully where resistance appears to the running script of a terrorist attack and where the holes appear in the narrative that threaten blowback consequences.
“Then you figure out:
“- What must you do to construct and reinforce the message and the narrative that allows you to get away with hijacking an entire city?
“- How do you cope with those awkward persons who start to ask hard questions?
“- How do the temporarily imprisoned respond when the controls are lifted – indignation, civil unrest and so forth, or simple resignation and relief that it ‘wasn’t much worse’?
“- How do you select and criminalize the selected patsies? Preferably choose an obscure avenue which damns a minority usefully present in the US who is shown to have connections to the ex-Soviet Union (the Evil Empire).
“Then in the standard pattern of the Gladio Strategy of Tension, present the guy next door, or at school with your kids, as the enemy within. Dramatize brainwashing.
“So, to summarize, as an agent of the ruling power tasked with running this experiment, what would your plan be and how exactly would you carry it through?
“My response is depressingly the following: the architects of Boston must be very pleased with the results. Boston fell for it and America fell for it, and so did Europe and more or less everywhere else. Mass anesthesia. . . .
“Lessons have been learned, failures understood, success noted and ticked, new blueprints under preparation.”
When trying to pinpoint the actual beneficiaries of terror, Israel’s rulers deserve special mention for at least three reasons.
1. Israel exerts decisive influence on American domestic and foreign policies. A video, you might say, is better than a thousand words. So, instead of extensive documentation (readily available), let me refer you to a clip that not only confirms this claim, but that should mortify any lover of human dignity.
This 2011 video captures an address by a prime minister of that New Hampshire-sized country to a joint meeting of Congress. Note the belligerence, self-importance, platitudes, patronizing—all this from a scoundrel who is, at least indirectly, responsible for the death of his predecessor and who repeatedly escaped, by a very narrow margin, criminal prosecution in his own land. That solemn occasion was uncharacteristically attended by most members of Congress, and drew a total of 29 standing ovations (on average, one prolonged ovation every 90 seconds or less!). Yes, the vast majority of American congressmen, not particularly known for their athleticism, rose to their feet and clapped their hands 29 times during that speech.
Video: Death of American Democracy
The only similar incident I know of, after 30 years of professionally studying subservience, conformity, closed-mindedness, and betrayal, occurred in the late 1930s Soviet Union, while “a Communist Party conference was under way in Moscow. At the end, the usual tribute to Comrade Stalin was made, followed by the customary standing ovation. At that point, an unusual complication developed. The presiding secretary was new at the job, replacing a man who had just been Gulagized. The secretary dared not stop clapping and thereby appear insufficiently worshipful of the Great Comrade, nor could his subordinates dare be the first to stop. The big shots on the podium, and the rank and file in the hall, kept clapping their hands vigorously with make-believe enthusiasm. Only after eleven minutes did one man on the podium stop, and only then, in an instant, did everyone else stop too. This act of courage, fatigue, or common sense led to the customary nocturnal visit.”
2. The second reason for paying special attention to Israeli gains is the intimate connection between the Israeli state and terror. Israel’s involvement in false-flag incidents (e.g., the Lavon Affair), terror operations (e.g., murder of Iranian nuclear scientists), and terror incidents in the USA (e.g., the dancing Israelis of 9/11), raises the possibility that Israel played a role in various terror incidents in the USA and elsewhere.
3. The third reason for paying special attention to the rulers of Israel is their connection to the Rothschild clan and its offshoots. The secretive Rothschilds, as far as we can guess, are by far the richest and most powerful bloodline in the world. It is conceivable, although hard to prove, that this family and its intimate marriage networks single-handedly controls the central banks of most of the world’s countries, the private banks that control these central banks, and the major international banks (e.g., the Bank for International Settlements, World Bank, International Monetary Fund). If true, that stranglehold allows that family to control the politics of the USA and other countries–directly, and, as we have just seen in the video above–through their Israeli creation.
And the Rothschilds did create Israel. If anyone had any doubts, they should have been dispelled when a contemporary Rothschild publicly (and entirely out of character with the entire history of that crowd) crowed over the fact that his “great-grandfather started the country. We would not want people to forget that.”
If you still have doubts, if you are, say an Israeli who believes the lies your teachers told you, consider this bizarre 1992 Rothschild donation. This donation came with conditions that no self-respecting independent government would have accepted:
The Israel Supreme Court is the creation of one elite family: the Rothschilds. In their negotiations with Israel, they’ve agreed to donate the building under three conditions: the Rothschilds were to choose the plot of land, they would use their own architect and no one would ever know the price of its construction. The reasons for those conditions are quite evident: the Supreme Court building is a Temple of Masonic Mystery Religion and is built by the elite, for the elite.
Here then are the perceived gains to Israeli overlords—the same overlords who treacherously guide their bewitched countrymen from victory to victory to an almost certain final ruin:
1. Right after the Boston bombing, an aide to the Israeli prime minister explained who was one of the beneficiaries of both Boston and 9/11 (and you better believe it was not Islam):
A diplomatic advisor to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and candidate for the post of Israeli ambassador to Washington, told a closed meeting of U.S. Jewish leaders in New York last week that the Boston Marathon Explosions would increase American support for Israel – just as that support increased following the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
2. Israel benefits in yet more bizarre way: In efforts to deepen ”professional cooperation between the law enforcement agencies” of Israel and its American colony, Israeli police headed to the U.S. to aid in Boston marathon explosion investigation. By and by, Israel will not have to spy on the American government or conduct false-flag operations against it (e.g., the Lavon Affair, the USS Liberty)—it will actually constitute an official part of the American Banking-Militaristic Complex.
3. As we have already seen, the bankers who control both Israel and the USA use terror to achieve one of their primary goals: destabilize and create chaotic conditions the world over. With characteristic hubris, “the chief of Israel’s military intelligence ... has said that the chaos in the Arab world favors Israel and is something that he believes should continue.”
Look how much they have achieved: In 2001, the middle-eastern countries that enjoyed a measure of independence from the bankers and who might have had one day stood by the oppressed Palestinians, were Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Iran. Iraq and Libya already fell to the bankers and are undergoing the desired fragmentation and chaos. Syria, as I write, is undergoing this blood-curdling process, while Iran is the subject of daily propaganda, pitiless sanctions, a terror campaign, and encirclement. Other countries that could one day pose a potential threat to Israeli hegemony of the entire Middle East are Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan–and in 2013 all three suffer convulsions and turmoil. When this phase is over, it would be the turn of Russia (in the unlikely event that Putin or a fellow patriot escape assassination that long) and China. And then—1984.
An independent observer might be tempted to conclude that all these wars of conquest, all these efforts to destabilize and terrorize largely-Muslim countries, are carried out at the behest of Israel’s oligrachs.
4. Israeli corporations, naturally, benefit handsomely from terror. For example, Israel, which dominates the drone industry, is expected to cash in on the Boston Bombings.
Thus, the war on terror benefits the rulers of Israel and their Rothschild masters in a variety of ways:
Countries, national leaders, or terrorists gained less than nothing from terror and yet, we are told, they continue to pursue this amazingly counterproductive strategy.
Even their one supposed gain–hastening the economic collapse of the USA–is best seen as a goal of the bankers that, if achieved, would further weaken the cause of purported terrorists. Thus, America’s economic decline is a self-inflicted wound, part of the bankers’ long-term plans, and not the bankers’ suicidal over-reaction to minor provocations. Would you remove a hangnail with clippers or would you rather remove it by spending all the money you have, sinking into unsustainable debt, purchasing a 20-megaton H-bomb, inviting all your friends and relations to dinner, and arranging, just then, to have that bomb dropped on your house?
On the other hand, the Rothschilds, their allies and creations, gained handsomely from the war on terror. In a sane world, it is they who would have been the prime suspects of most acts of terror taking place anywhere in the world.
One historical example, taken from second century BC Rome, should suffice to make that obvious point and to set the stage for a more detailed discussion of current realities:
The Gracchi, Tiberius Gracchus and Gaius Gracchus, were Roman brothers who tried to reform Rome’s social and political structure to help the lower classes, in the 2nd century B.C.
Events surrounding the politics of the Gracchi led to the decline and eventual fall of the Roman Republic. From the Gracchi to the end of the Roman Republic, personalities dominated Roman politics; major battles were not with foreign powers, but civil.
To Tiberius Gracchus, the biggest problem was that there were not enough small farmers. He wanted to give land to some of the many free, poor unemployed. These men would be happy to farm, but there wasn’t enough land, so he proposed that the state should take over land held illegally by large landholders and distribute it to the poor. Unfortunately for the plan of Tiberius, the people illegally holding the land were the powerful nobles whose families had held the land for generations. They didn’t want to give it up.
In 133 Tiberius Gracchus was killed during rioting. Gaius Gracchus took up the reform issues of his brother when he became tribune in 123 B.C., 10-years after the death of brother Tiberius. He created a coalition of poor free men and equestrians who were willing to go along with his proposals. His political successes enraged the nobles. Gaius Gracchus lost control of his coalition and, faced with armed opposition, fell on a slave’s sword.
Here are three random examples (of thousands):
The worst case of the murder of a Japanese Prime Minister, though, definitely is the story of what happened to Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita. According to two independent sources, one a member of the Japanese royal family and another a high ranking public security police official, Takeshita was taken to Alaska by thugs working for the US corporate government.
There he was chased naked in the snow by a helicopter before he was beaten to death and had his testicles crushed, they concur. A video of his murder was shown to high level Japanese power brokers as a warning of what would happen if they tried the same. Takeshita’s big crime, as was the case with Hashimoto, was to discuss in public the possibility of selling off some of Japan’s US government bond holdings. The official story is that Takeshita ‘died in the hospital.’
According to a Memphis jury’s verdict on December 8, 1999, in the wrongful death lawsuit of the King family versus Loyd Jowers ‘and other unknown co-conspirators,’ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by a conspiracy that included agencies of his own government. Almost 32 years after King’s murder at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis on April 4, 1968, a court extended the circle of responsibility for the assassination beyond the late scapegoat James Earl Ray to the United States government.
What I experienced in that courtroom ranged from inspiration at the courage of the Kings, their lawyer-investigator William F. Pepper, and the witnesses, to amazement at the government’s carefully interwoven plot to kill Dr. King. The seriousness with which U.S. intelligence agencies planned the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. speaks eloquently of the threat Kingian nonviolence represented to the powers that be in the spring of 1968.
Thanks to the conjunction of a civil court, an independent judge with a sense of history, and a courageous family and lawyer, a spiritual breakthrough to an unspeakable truth occurred in Memphis.
The last example shows in greater detail how two Rockefeller’s protégés terrorized an entire nation.
As journalist William Blum notes, there’s one thing the United States hates more than a Marxist in power, and that’s a democratically elected Marxist in power. A prime example was Salvador Allende of Chile. September 4  marks 31 years since his election. September 11 [9/11] marks 28 years since his death in a U.S.-sponsored coup.
’I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist because of the irresponsibility of its own people.’—Henry Kissinger, June 27, 1970
Salvador Allende, a physician by trade, first gained worldwide attention when he came within three percent of winning Chile’s 1958 presidential election. Six years later, the United States decided to no longer leave such elections to chance. It was time to introduce the Chilean people to democracy, American-style.
The U.S. government, mostly through the covert efforts of the Central Intelligence Agency, spent more money per capita to support Allende’s opponent, Eduardo Frei, than Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater combined to spend that same year in the American presidential election.
With an estimated $20 million of U.S. taxpayer money to work with, the CIA embarked on a program of anti-communist propaganda and disinformation designed to scare Chilean citizens — specifically mothers — into believing that an Allende victory would result in direct Russian control of their country and their lives. ‘No religious activity would be possible,’ they were told. Their children, hammer and sickle stamped on their foreheads, would be shipped to the USSR to be used as slaves, the radio and newspapers direly warned.
The scare tactics worked. While Allende won the male vote by a small margin, 469,000 more Chilean women chose Frei. Cleverly manipulated to fear the ‘blood and pain’ of ‘godless, atheist communism,’ the mothers of Chile voted against the man who promised to ‘redistribute income and reshape the ... economy’ through the nationalization of some major industries, like copper mining, and the expansion of agrarian reform. A far cry from Leninism, Allende’s policy of ‘eurocommunism,’i.e., communists linking with social democratic parties into a united front, was for the most part, as unacceptable to the Kremlin as it was to the White House.
When the 1970 Chilean presidential election rolled around, Allende was still a major player. However, he had a new and powerful enemy: Dr. Henry Kissinger.
Despite another wave of U.S.-funded propaganda, Salvador Allende was elected president of South America’s longest functioning democracy on Sept. 4, 1970. Henry Kissinger (HK) and his cohorts had to act. The 40 Committee was formed with HK as chair. The goal was not only to save Chile from its irresponsible populace but to yet again stave off the red tide...
At a Sept. 15 meeting called to halt the spread of infection, Kissinger and President Nixon told CIA Director Richard Helms it would be necessary to ‘make the [Chilean] economy scream.’ While allocating at least $10 million to assist in sabotaging Allende’s presidency, outright assassination was also considered a serious and welcome option.
The respect held by the Chilean military for the democratic process led Kissinger to pick as his first assassination target not Allende himself, but General Rene Schneider, head of the Chilean Armed Forces. Schneider, it seems, had long believed that politics and the military should remain discrete. Despite warnings from Helms that a coup might not be possible in such a stable democracy, HK urged the plan to proceed.
’Kissinger had direct personal knowledge of the CIA’s plan to kidnap and murder Schneider,’ declares journalist Christopher Hitchens. ‘This was one of the relatively few times when Mr. Kissinger involved himself in the assassination of a single named individual rather than the slaughter of anonymous thousands.’
When the killing of Schneider only served to solidify Allende’s support, a CIA-sponsored media blitz similar to that of 1964 commenced. Citizens were faced with daily “reports” of Marxist atrocities and Soviet bases supposedly being built in Chile. U.S. threats to sever economic and military aid were also used to help cultivate a ‘coup climate’ among those in the military. These two approaches represented the hard and soft lines outlined by Nixon and HK.
How soft was soft? Edward Korry, U.S. ambassador to Chile at the time, articulated the soft sell by declaring that the U.S. task was ‘to do all within our power to condemn Chile and the Chileans to utmost deprivation and poverty.’ Korry warned, ‘not a nut or bolt [will] be allowed to reach Chile under Allende.’
On the hard side, Dr. Henry began securing support for a possible military coup.
’In 1970,’ writes historian Howard Zinn, ‘an ITT director, John McCone, who had also been head of the CIA, told Kissinger and Helms that ITT was willing to give $1 million to help the U.S. government in its plans to overthrow the Allende government.’
’The stage was set for a clash of two experiments,’ says Blum. Allende’s socialism was pitted against what was later called a ‘prototype or laboratory experiment to test the techniques of heavy financial investment in an effort to discredit and bring down a government.’ This clash would reach its climax on Sept. 11, 1973.
The socialist experiment ended in violence on that day and Allende himself was said to have committed suicide ... with a machine gun. Of course, the U.S. claimed no complicity in or even knowledge of the coup at the time. However, when the State Department declassified 5000 documents in 1999, a different story was told.
For example, a CIA document from the day before the coup stated bluntly, ‘The coup attempt will begin September 11.’ Ten days later, the Agency announced, ‘severe repression is planned.’ With thousands of opponents of the new regime gathered in soccer stadiums, a Sept. 28 State Department document detailed a request from Chile’s new defense minister for Washington to send an expert advisor on detention centers.
Allende was dead. In his place, the people of Chile now faced brutal repression and human rights violations, book burnings, dogs trained to sexually molest females, a powerful secret police, and more than 3000 executions. Tens of thousands more were tortured and/or disappeared. Shortly after the coup, U.S. economic and military aid once again began to flow into Chile.
The man in charge of all this was General Augusto Pinochet, a man Dr. Kissinger could really get behind. ‘In the United States, as you know, we are sympathetic to what you are trying to do,’ HK told the Chilean dictator in 1975. ‘We wish your government well.’
’My evaluation,’ he continued to Pinochet, ‘is that you are the victim of all the left-wing groups around the world and that your greatest sin was that you overthrew a government that was going communist.’ Later that same year, when facing a roomful of Chilean diplomats concerned about the effect Pinochet’s human rights violations might have on world opinion, Henry was in top form:
’Well, I read the briefing paper for this meeting and it was nothing but human rights. The State Department is made up of people who have a vocation for the ministry. Because there were not enough churches for them, they went into the Department of State.’
Was HK really that concerned with the minor nationalization of industry proposed by Salvador Allende or were other forces at work here? ... He was worried that successful economic development, where the economy produces benefits for the general population — not just profits for private corporations — would have a contagious effect. In those comments, Kissinger revealed the basic story of U.S. foreign policy for decades.’ Accordingly, in 1974, when the new U.S. ambassador to Chile, David Popper, complained about Chile’s human rights violations, Dr. Kissinger promptly sent these orders:
’Tell Popper to cut out the political science lectures.’
Multiply these examples by thousands, and you get the picture. That is just the way things are: The bankers and their agents murder to enhance their dystopian ambitions, power, and privileges (and perhaps also because it makes them feel good, killing thousands).
Recall too that attempts to reconstruct murders on limited information–the Death Squads (e.g., CIA) are not known for their transparency–or for their love of truth. So of the thousands of available accounts, a few might err either in details or any given account might be utterly false. But here we are only concerned with the bankers’ indisputable reliance on assassinations.
The bankers’ overall strategy is spelled out by John Perkins, a former insider. The video linked below describes the rationale for the entire intimidation/assassination strategy, and, in particular, its three stages of escalating malignity.
And here are a few excerpts from a transcript of a very similar 2004 radio interview:
The book was to be dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been my clients whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits–Jaime Roldós, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Roldós and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in. ...
Omar Torrijos had signed the Canal Treaty with Carter— and, you know, it passed our congress by only one vote. It was a highly contended issue. And Torrijos then also went ahead and negotiated with the Japanese to build a sea-level canal. The Japanese wanted to finance and construct a sea-level canal in Panama. Torrijos talked to them about this which very much upset Bechtel Corporation, whose president was George Schultz and senior council was Casper Weinberger. When Carter was thrown out (and that’s an interesting story — how that actually happened), when he lost the election, and Reagan came in and Schultz came in as Secretary of State from Bechtel, and Weinberger came from Bechtel to be Secretary of Defense, they were extremely angry at Torrijos — tried to get him to renegotiate the Canal Treaty and not to talk to the Japanese. He adamantly refused. He was a very principled man. He had his problems, but he was a very principled man. He was an amazing man, Torrijos. And so, he died in a fiery airplane crash, which was connected to a tape recorder with explosives in it, which — I was there. I had been working with him. I knew that we economic hit men had failed. I knew the jackals were closing in on him, and the next thing, his plane exploded with a tape recorder with a bomb in it. There’s no question in my mind that it was C.I.A. sanctioned, and most — many Latin American investigators have come to the same conclusion. Of course, we never heard about that in our country. ...
And in Iraq we tried to implement the same policy that was so successful in Saudi Arabia, but Saddam Hussein didn’t buy. When the economic hit men fail in this scenario, the next step is what we call the jackals. Jackals are C.I.A.-sanctioned people that come in and try to foment a coup or revolution. If that doesn’t work, they perform assassinations, or try to. In the case of Iraq, they weren’t able to get through to Saddam Hussein. He had — His bodyguards were too good. He had doubles. They couldn’t get through to him. So the third line of defense, if the economic hit men and the jackals fail, the next line of defense is our young men and women, who are sent in to die and kill, which is what we’ve obviously done in Iraq.
Recall that America’s contemporary road to Ira Levin’s This Perfect Day eschews coups d’état, relying instead on the boiling frog gradualist approach: a minor transgression is followed by a harsher one in a never-ending series of escalations. That is precisely what is taking place now with assassinations. The murderers are now in the process of coming out of the closet, and carrying out theirabominations in full view.
So by 2011, the Death Squads (e.g., FBI, MI6) and their media messenger boys openly acknowledge what everyone suspected for over a century: targeted assassinations.
There is no denying that 2011 has been a banner year for taxpayer-funded assassinations — Osama bin Laden, Anwar Awlaki, five senior Pakistani Taliban commanders in October and many more. Given the crucial U.S. backup role in Libya, and the ringing exhortation for the Libyan leader’s death issued by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton just before the event itself, we can probably take a lot of credit for Moammar Kadafi’s messy end too. . . .
Nowadays no one bothers to pretend. Successful assassination missions, whether by elite special forces or remote-controlled drones, are openly celebrated.
Clearly, the sentiment prevalent among our leaders is that eliminating particular enemy leaders is bound to have a beneficial effect. Thus in our recent wars, the U.S. has made the pursuit of ‘high-value targets,’ the principal objective of so-called human network attacks, a priority. ‘The platoon’s mission is to kill or capture HVTs,’ recalled Matt Cook, a sergeant in the 101st Airborne based in northern Iraq in 2005. ‘That is all we do.’
By 2008, according to a U.S. Strategic Command study, our military was simultaneously engaged in no fewer than 285 human network attack programs. . . .
‘I used to be able to go talk to local Taliban commanders,’ a journalist long resident in Afghanistan told me, ‘but they are all dead.'
Naturally, America’s protectorates are now coming out of the closet too:
In 2012, a top-level official, speaking probably for that heartless family business miscalled ‘Saudi Arabia,’ put a $450,000 bounty out on the head of President Assad of Syria.
Now, this strategy of assassination is strikingly effective. Thanks in part to it, the bankers have made enormous strides in achieving their goals of (i) enriching and empowering themselves, (ii) enslaving and impoverishing humanity, (iii) killing millions, (iv) ecocide.
Take the example American presidents since the days of Andrew Jackson. Jackson himself miraculously survived the bankers’ plot to kill him–and delayed their program of world conquest by decades. They have learned their lessons since then.
Zachary Taylor died in office, and he too was perhaps insufficiently compliant. Lincoln and Kennedy really annoyed the bankers–and were assassinated. Garfield and McKinley might have annoyed them too–and were assassinated. FDR was sufficiently troublesome to try to remove from office through a failed Nazi putsch, and he too died in office (if FDR was indeed murdered, his worst tactical error was succumbing to pressure and cynically replacing Wallace with Truman—a move that in turn opened the door wide open for his own assassination). Wilson was their yes man to begin with, betraying for their sake his country by leading it to a bankers’ war, creating the criminal private banking cartel otherwise known as the Federal Reserve, and seeing to the passage of the treasonous income tax. Towards the end though, Wilson had a change of heart, and genuinely tried to serve the world’s people–and he too died in office.
True, we cannot be sure about any one of these national tragedies. But we can be absolutely sure about the existence of a pattern. Ask yourself, by contrast, how many presidential friends of the bankers died in office?
Undoubtedly, the intimidation/decapitation strategy is fantastically effective. That strategy upended human progress over and over again. It contributed to the fall of Rome, and it would, if we let it, contribute to the fall of the USA. It explains in part humanity’s contemporary predicament (other causes are explored here).
[The Assassin] had killed evil before. People were happy, thrilled that another monster had met his end. . . . On that clear, crisp morning in the normally serene Central Park, his trigger pull would be remembered for a while. And [he] would get on a plane or train or bus or, like today, use his own two feet, and pull another trigger, or throw another knife, or strangle the life out of someone using simply his bare hands. ... He would continue to do it, and for only one reason. If he didn’t, the world had no chance to get better. If good people stood by and did nothing, the monsters won every time. He was not going to let that happen.—David Baldacci
Up to now, we have shown that rulers often safeguard their position by killing their opponents. We still need to show that assassinations can likewise be productively employed either by the ruled or by the weaker party in a conflict. Hassan Al Sabbah and his successors provide one fascinating example of this form of asymmetrical warfare.
Al Sabbah’s founded the Nizari Isma’ili state. The state consisted of some 50+ dispersed mountain fortresses and their surrounding valleys in parts of what are now Iran and Syria. That state flourished from 1090 to 1256 (closely coinciding with the Crusades, 1095-1291).
It must be noted at the outset that any attempt of reconstructing that state’s historical record is strewn with obstacles. For one thing, our story begins almost a millennium ago. For another, the Mongols who finally conquered the Nizari Isma’li state deliberately destroyed most of its books. So, for the most part, we depend on the writings of the detractors of that state—Sunnis, Christians, and their captive (or naïve) historians. Finally, the Al Sabbah Strategy has always presented the greatest possible menace to powerful people and to systems of unjust, repressive, rule. Thus, on the rare occasions when Al Sabbah, his followers, and successors are mentioned, they are dismissed as a bunch of murderous potheads.
To be sure, although the pothead and fake paradise tales are probably either propaganda or fanciful concoctions, Al Sabbah (like the rest of us) did have his fair share of failings. In his remarkable History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell observes: “Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales.” Al Sabbah’s fairytales led to tragic results, including the execution of both of his sons: the first for alleged murder, the second on suspicion of drinking wine.
Transliterations from Persian or Arabic into English have not yet been standardized. The quotations below use different spellings of Iranian and Arabic names, and the internet sports yet other spelling variations. The rule here is simple: As long as the variations are pretty minor, they might describe the same person.
As a member of the minority Nizari Isma’ili sect of Shi’a Islam (the other, hostile, branch is called Mustali Isma’ilis), Al Sabbah was appalled by the enmity of the ruling Sunni Turks towards Shi’ism. In fact, most Shi’a Muslims living in Iran and elsewhere under Turkish rule suffered from religious and political persecution. Now and then, entire communities of Nizaris were slaughtered.
Al Sabbah’s revolt “was perhaps also an expression of the Persians’ resentment over the alien rule of the Saljuq Turks,” since Persians [=Iranians] accounted for a large proportion of the early popular support he received.”
Economic oppression played a role too. At the time, the followers of the Nizaris were artisans, the poor, and the landless.
It was in this context that he embarked on a resistance movement, beginning with the search for a secure site from which to launch his revolt.
That first secure Nizari site was the Alamut Fortress. Its capture furnishes us with a foretaste of Al Sabbah’s strategic genius, aversion to bloodshed, and commitment to fair play. If the version below is true, it equals or outshines, in my view, the legendary capture of Troy:
By 1090 AD, the Seljuq vizier Nizam al-Mulk had already given orders for Hasan’s arrest and therefore Hasan was living in hiding in the northern town of Qazvin, approximately 60 km from the Alamut castle. There, he made plans for the capture of the fortress, which was surrounded by a fertile valley whose inhabitants were mainly fellow Shi’i Muslims, the support of whom Hasan could easily gather for the revolt against the Seljuqs. The castle had never before been captured by military means and thus Hasan planned meticulously. Meanwhile, he dispatched his reliable supporters to the Alamut valley to begin settlements around the castle.
Ruins of the Alamut Fortress. These ruins are located in North Iran, about 100 km from Tehran, 2,163 meters above sea level. From 1090 to 1256 AD, the castle functioned as the headquarters of the dispersed Nizari Isma’ili state. In 1256, Isma’ili control of the fortress was lost to invading Mongols.
In the summer of 1090 AD, Hasan set out from Qazvin towards Alamut on a mountainous route through Andej. Heremained at Andej disguised as a schoolteacher named Dehkhoda until he was certain that a number of his supporters had settled directly below the castle in the village of Gazorkhan or had gained employment at the fortress itself. Still in disguise, Hasan made his way into the fortress, earning the trust and friendship of many of its soldiers. Careful not to attract the attention of the castle’s Zaydi ‘Alid lord, Mahdi, Hasan began to attract prominent figures at Alamut to his mission. It has even been suggested that Mahdi’s own deputy was a secret supporter of Hasan, waiting to demonstrate his loyalty on the day that Hasan would ultimately take the castle.
Earlier in the summer, Mahdi visited Qazvin, where he received strict orders from Nizam al-Mulk to find and arrest Hasan who was said to be hiding in the province of Daylaman. Upon his return to the Alamut fortress, Mahdi noticed several new servants and guards employed there. His deputy explained that illness had taken many of the castle’s workers and it was fortunate that other labourers were found from the neighbouring villages. Worried about the associations of these workers, Mahdi ordered his deputy to arrest anyone with connections to the Isma’ilis.
Mahdi’s suspicions were confirmed when Hasan finally approached the lord of the fortress, revealing his true identity and declared that the castle now belonged to him. Immediately, Mahdi called upon the guards to arrest and remove Hasan from the castle, only to find them prepared to follow Hasan’s every command. Astounded, he realized he had been tricked and was allowed to exit the castle freely. Before leaving however, Mahdi was given a draft of 3000 gold dinars as payment for the fortress, payable by a Seljuq officer in service to the Isma’ili cause named Ra’is Muzaffar who honoured the payment in full. The Alamut fortress was captured from Mahdi and therefore from Seljuq control by Hasan and his supporters without resorting to any violence.
After the capture of Alamut, other fortresses were secured in Iran and Syria, leading to the formation of a geographically dispersed but politically unified state.
Following the capture of Alamut, the Nizaris faced a dilemma: How could they defend themselves from wars of attrition, recurrent loss of lives, and the eventual demise of their state and religion? And how could they prevent state-sponsored massacres of Nizaris living under Sunni or Christian rule?
Al Sabbah’s brilliant solution to these questions involved nine ingredients:
Instead of a contiguous, readily vanquished, small state,
establish a geographically dispersed state of formidable
mountain fortresses. Such fortresses could be conquered, but
that would involve high costs and
would divert powerful rulers from more pressing matters.
ready to form mutually beneficial alliances with any
ruler—provided that ruler left unmolested your
state and the Nizaris under his rule.
3) Train a cadre of assassins willing to sacrifice their lives to save their state and co-religionists.
4) Establish these assassins’ well-deserved, fearsome reputation for professionalism and courage.
5) Avoid killing bystanders: Only kill the intended target.
assassinations to deter conquests of any part of the Nizari
state, to deter massacres against
co-religionists living in the domains of the target, and to promote alliances.
Whenever possible, try to intimidate a powerful target,
e.g., by leaving a dagger on a Sunni Sultan’s bed
while he is asleep. Carry out an assassination as a last resort only.
8) If nothing else works, kill the target. His successor, most likely, would not be as foolhardy.
Strike fear into future victims by carrying out the
assassination in a public space and have your assassin
stay put after completing his mission, unflinchingly accepting death.
Let us flesh out this strategy with a few quotes.
When the Assassins were out on mission, they generally worked alone. Rarely did two or more of them work together. They dressed up as tradesmen or ascetic religious men, and spent a good deal of time in a city, in order to get well-acquainted with the houses and streets, as well as the daily routines of the future victim. The actual murder was performed with a dagger and in public, often inside the mosque on a Friday. By doing it all in public, the information about the deed was soon well known, and people were frightened. In general, the Assassin himself was killed immediately thereafter by guards of the victim.
The following Wikipedia quote captures the formidable power of the Al Sabbah Strategy.
When [sultan] Sanjar rebuffed the hashashin ambassadors who were sent by Hassan for peace negotiations, Hassan sent his hashashins to the sultan. Sanjar woke up one morning with a dagger stuck in the ground beside his bed. Alarmed, he kept the matter a secret. A messenger from Hassan arrived and stated, ‘Did I not wish the sultan well, the dagger which was struck in the hard ground would have been planted on your soft breast.’ For the next several decades there ensued a ceasefire between the Nizaris and the Seljuk. Sanjar himself pensioned the hashashins on tax collected from the lands they owned, gifted them with grants and licenses, and even allowed them to collect tolls from travelers.
One account of the taming of Salah A’din, himself one of the most astute, principled, and successful conquerors of all time, can serve as an example of the Al Sabbah Strategy in action, long after Al Sabbah himself met his creator.
After conquering parts of Syria, Salah A’din wished to subdue the Syrian branch of the Isma’ili sect known then as the ‘Assassins’ led by Rashid ad-Din Sinan. Based in the an-Nusayriyah Mountains , they commanded nine fortresses, all built on high elevations. As soon as he dispatched the bulk of his troops to Egypt, Saladin led his army into the an-Nusayriyah range in August 1176. He retreated the same month, after laying waste to the countryside, but failing to conquer any of the forts. . .
“However, Sinan’s panegyrist [eulogist] claims Saladin departed due to fears for his own life at the hands of the Assassins. He had his guards supplied with link lights and had chalk and cinders strewed around his tent outside Masyaf—which he was besieging—to detect any footsteps by the Assassins. According to this version, one night, Saladin’s guards noticed a spark glowing down the hill of Masyaf and then vanishing among the Ayyubid tents. Presently, Saladin awoke from his sleep to find a figure leaving the tent. He then saw that the lamps were displaced and beside his bed laid hot scones of the shape peculiar to the Assassins with a note at the top pinned by a poisoned dagger. The note threatened that he would be killed if he didn’t withdraw from his assault. Saladin gave a loud cry, exclaiming that Sinan himself was the figure that left the tent.
Another version claims that Saladin hastily withdrew his troops from Masyaf because they were urgently needed to fend off a Crusader force in the vicinity of Mount Lebanon. Realizing he was unable to subdue the Assassins, Saladin sought to form an alliance with them, consequently depriving the Crusaders of a potent ally against him. Viewing the expulsion of the Crusaders as a mutual benefit and priority, Saladin and Sinan maintained cooperative relations afterwards, the latter dispatching contingents of his forces to bolster Saladin’s army in a number of decisive subsequent battlefronts.
The Al Sabbah Strategy failed at the end. Perhaps the then-ruler of the Nizari Isma’ili state lacked Al Sabbah’s courage, brilliance, and resourcefulness. Perhaps, owing to cultural, religious, and racial differences, the Nizaris were unable to infiltrate Mongolian population centers.
And this, in turn, brings us back to the two views on the origins of terror. The official view is scarcely credible. According to this view, self-sacrificing terrorists prefer the counterproductive murders of innocents to the potentially highly effective killing of the architects of the terrorists’ own undoing. If you could strike fear into the heart of a fighter like Salah A’din and change history, couldn’t you scare the daylights out of tin soldiers like David Rockefeller or the man who authorized the 160 waterboardings of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? The refusal to target the likes of David Rockefeller, Dick Cheney, or Larry Summers defies reason, for it forces us to accept the improbable assertion that all alleged terrorists and architects of terror are morons–utterly incapable of learning from their mistakes, ancestors, enemies, and history.
On the other hand, the dissident view of terror faces no such difficulties, for it assumes that the bankers and their puppets (e.g., the “governments” of Canada, Mexico, USA, Australia, India, Egypt) are behind most acts of terror. Obviously, the men in the shadows are not about to selectively target themselves. And obviously, as we have seen, they do benefit–in a very big way–from the indiscriminate killing of innocents.
This is all the more so when it comes to the Al Sabbah Strategy. The Nizaris suffered from a grave handicap: Everyone knew where to find them–in the mighty fortress of Alamut, near modern day Tehran, and in a few dozen such fortresses and their surrounding countryside in Iran and Syria. In other words, they controlled a state and could be eventually conquered and eliminated. Modern purported terrorists are even less vulnerable than the Nizaris were in their remote castles. To destroy them, you’d have to nuke entire cities or turn the entire world into Ira Levin’s This Perfect Day.
Our case for government-sponsored terror is now complete: The primary suspects in most past cases of terror (and political assassinations) are the bankers and their governments. And, as long as these Mafiosi remain in power, they will always be the primary suspects of all future acts of terror.
F. The Revolutionary’s Dilemma Counterargument
As we have seen, Machiavellian rulers everywhere and always rely on selective targeting to satisfy their blood luster and to maintain and enhance their privileges and power. Astonishingly, their subjects have rarely given such rulers a bit of their own medicine. This seems to contradict our contention that the government is the prime suspect of terror. Why, this objection goes on to ask, is selective targeting used so often by rulers and so rarely by their victims or subjects? How is it that Henry Kissinger is still healthy, wealthy, and wicked, even though he murdered (indirectly of course) millions and even though millions of his victims are still paying for his misdeeds? And what about David Rockefeller, the Frankenstein who created the Kissinger Monster? How can said Rockefeller visit Chile, be shouted at—and yet not get shot?
The answer to these questions, it might be argued, is that terrorists are too stupid, or insane, or historically illiterate, to avail themselves of the Al Sabbah Strategy. The only strategy these idiots can come up with is the shotgun approach of indiscriminate killing. Their failure to use the Al Sabbah Strategy is not a proof of the dissident view of terror, but a testimony to the terrorists’ ignorance.
To refute this argument, we must ask: Why don’t ordinary people–the vast majority in any country–protect themselves by killing their oppressors? Why is humankind “more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves” by any means necessary?
The answer to this puzzle, I suspect, can be traced to the psychology of rulers and ruled. In the struggle for power and riches, psychopaths and other types of empathy-less defectives enjoy a tremendous advantage, for they more passionately want power and riches, and are willing to backstab, connive, and murder to achieve their goals. Thus, typical rulers care nothing for the intentions of some of their principled foes of improving the lot of the vast majority, and they have no inhibitions about killing.
The vast majority, on the other hand, finds it just about impossible to knowingly oppose humanitarian reforms or kill inconvenient people—as the following two examples show.
The first example comes from the battlefield. Shortly after World War II, researchers made a surprising discovery: If left to themselves, even when their own lives are at risk, only about 20% of soldiers fired their weapons during combat. By contrast, about 2 percent of soldiers were “aggressive psychopaths” who did not suffer from the normal remorse or trauma associated with killing.” In practice, and perhaps without fully realizing it, most soldiers were conscientious objectors.
The American armed forces have since tried every indoctrination and conditioning trick on the book to combat this humanitarian “flaw,” partially successfully, but this came at a tremendous cost: “The training techniques that leaders have employed to generate the remarkable advances [sic] in combat firing rates have resulted in increased rates of post-combat psychological trauma among combat veterans.”
The setting is a barbershop in a Colombian town. The narrator is the barber, a member of the revolutionary movement against a banker-propped savage oligarchy. A captain of the Colombian version of the Dead Squads enters the barbershop to have a shave. This captain, the revolutionary barber knows, is a fiendish cutthroat trying to scare the townspeople into submission. Recently, the captain forced the entire town to witness the brutal execution and mutilation of four of the barber’s fellow revolutionaries. The four were stripped naked, hung, and then certain parts of their bodies were used for target practice. The captain also tells the narrator of his plan to kill and torture more prisoners later that day.
The narrator, holding a sharp razor in his hands and attending to the defenseless murderer, is caught in a wrenching dilemma. On the one hand, he knows he should kill the villain, if only to delay the impending doom of his imprisoned comrades. On the other hand, he knows that such an action would either cost him his life or radically alter it. He recoils from the image of cutting throats, of snuffing out the life of a monster in the shape of a human being. He also feels that “he is a revolutionary, not a murderer.” What he wants in life is “lather and nothing else.”
Throughout the shaving session, the narrator believes that the captain knows nothing of his, the barber’s, revolutionary sympathies. At the end, upon leaving unscathed, the Death Squad captain says: “They told me that you’d kill me. I came to find out. But killing isn’t easy.”
And that is the profound revolutionary’s dilemma. Our enemies kill at ease. For them, killing innocent, courageous, idealistic leaders of the people is easier than it is for us to kill a leech. For them, our scruples are incomprehensible at best, contemptible at worst.
That is why, probably, the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and their lieutenants (e.g., Douglas MacArthur, Stanley McChrystal, Ben Bernanke) are winning the war against us. That is one reason they can go about, unmolested, despite their crimes.
And yet, the reluctance of ordinary people do in serial killers in cold blood–while of profound relevance to the war the men in the shadows are conducting against us–has no bearing on the present discussion. According to the official view of terror, alleged terrorists are perfectly willing to murder innocent bystanders. They have, we are told, no qualms running an airplane full of passengers into a skyscraper or blowing up pressure cookers in an international event like the Boston Marathon.
Since the official version assures us that terrorists are perfectly willing to kill innocents, they should eagerly frighten into submission or kill anyone who brought so many sorrows to them, their relatives, countrymen, and co-religionists.
Thus, our original argument still stands. Since terrorists are allegedly capable of murdering people in cold blood, since they are willing to sacrifice their lives for their cause, they surely would prefer, if they exist, the demise of their enemies to the demise of bystanders.
If terrorists exist, we must accept this improbable assertion: They are, each and every one of them, insane, ignorant, or colossally stupid.
Strategy without action is a day-dream; action without strategy is a nightmare. –A Japanese saying
We could live in a sustainable, just, free, and peaceful world. And yet we are descending into a of perpetual wars, slavery, ignorance, specialization, crass materialism, destitution and—finally—human extinction.
The contrived war on terror is just one ploy on the road to this nightmare.
Since the men in the shadows are not about to change, the only hope is their removal from power—by any means necessary.
Unfortunately, given these men’s cohesiveness and organizational skills, given their power over our minds, given their ability to convince the vast majority to act against its convictions and interests, such removal presents humanity with a herculean task.
Humanity’s future hinges on the strategy chosen by the few of us who are aware and who care. If we channel most of our energies to opening the eyes of the vast majority, we would surely lose the race. Our enemies possess superior propaganda resources and most human beings suffer from closed-mindedness and a misplaced loyalty to their “own” convictions. If we continue to merely expose the daily outrages of the men in the shadows, they will follow their master plan and contemptuously ignore us. If we engage in peaceful demonstrations, they would kill our tacticians and leaders, infiltrate our ranks, and crush us. If we embark on a conventional armed insurrection, they would prevail thanks to their superior firepower, surveillance capabilities, and eagerness to kill millions.
Pacifist strategies are sublimely appealing, but they too are doomed to flounder. Jesus of Nazareth relied on them, as did Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, and all three failed to unseat the villains or improve the human condition. All three, and so many others of our best and brightest, were murdered because they had not seen that their enemies were compassion-less. For these enemies, pacifism is a contemptible weakness to be exploited, not a virtue. “Forgiveness,” Mark Twain observed, “is the fragrance that the violet shed on the heel that has crushed it.” The fabulist Aesop saw it too. Befriending a snake, he argued, would cost you your life.
If we try to reform the system from within, we would surely lose as well, for the system is rigged. For decades, I passionately felt that we could make a difference by exclusively focusing on sunshine bribery (aka campaign financing and revolving doors) and move on from there. But now, this late in the day, that strategy is doomed too (please see Reference  below for a more detailed overview of our limited strategic options).
I would go farther. All these strategies, I am utterly convinced, play into the hands of the enemies of humanity. Such strategies make us feel that we are doing something while they divert our attention from the only strategy that does have a fighting chance.
Humanity is at a crossroads. “Continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom” is on hand–but only if we dare see that we live in one of those tragic epochs when “the tree of liberty must be [strategically] refreshed ... with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
(links to some notes and references are only provided within the text)
1. Nissani, Moti. The apprenticeship approach to writing instruction. Visible Language 30 (#3): 284-313 (1996).
3. Psychologically, given our present “educational” system, this process is an excruciating task. See, Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962 (online review). See also: Nissani, Moti. The plight of the obscure innovator in science. Social Studies of Science 25: 165-183 (1995).
4. Two readable academic articles on the subject of resistance to conceptual change: a. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. Human Inference (1980). b. Nissani, Moti & Hoefler-Nissani, Donna M. Experimental studies of belief-dependence of observations and of resistance to conceptual change. Cognition and Instruction 9: 97-111 (1992).
5. Broeckers, Martin (in an interview with Lars Schall). The JFK assassination marked the end of the American republic (2013). For a more detailed discussion, see Nissani, Moti. Confessions of a conspiracy theorist (2010).
6. Popper, Karl. The Open Society and its Enemies (1945).
7. Vonnegut, Kurt. Cat’s Cradle (1963).
8. Mann, Charles C. The founding sachems (2005).
9. Nissani, Moti. Seven billion cheers for direct democracy (2012).
11. Roberts, Gregory D. Shantaram (2003), p. 662.
12. Barrett, Kevin. US “death squad envoy” arrives in Egypt – and the slaughter begins (2013).
13. Roberts, Paul C. Obama’s SEAL Team 6 coverup (2013).
14. John Grisham provides one example of such Kafkaesque state terror: After Guantánamo, Another Injustice (2013).
15. See this prescient warning: Leontief, Wassily, “The distribution of work and income,” Scientific American (September 1982).
16. Brown, Ellen. Web of Debt (2007), p. 79.
17. This anachronistic quote is from John Acton (1834-1902).
18. Orwell, George. 1984 (1949).
18b. Supposedly, if you place a frog in a pot filled with boiling water, the frog will jump out and survive. If you place it in a similar pot of cold water and gradually heat the water, the frog will stay put and be boiled to death. This sounds like a tall tale to me—and a cruel idea for a high school project. But I can’t think of any other expression that conveys the difference between an abrupt coup and a gradual one. It’s that imagery that I’m trying to capture, regardless of its scientific validity.
19. Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (2007).
20. Robinson, Jerry. “American Gestapo: It’s time to wake up” (2013).
21. Nissani, Moti. Lives in the Balance (1991), Chapter 1.
22. Ferner, Mike. “A tale of two tragedies” (2013).
23. Butler, Smedley D. War is a Racket. (1935)
24. Washingtonblog.com. 4 Out of 5 Americans face joblessness, poverty (2013).
25. Narwani, Sharmine. Arabs, beware the “small states” option (2013).
26. Cottrell Richard. Boston: a cynically calculated rehearsal (2013).
27. Avriel, E. and Polnik, G. Family values (2010).
28. Gill, N. S. The Gracchi brothers.
29. Fulford, Ben. Real life assassins and their role (2013).
30. Douglass, Jim. The Martin Luther King conspiracy exposed in Memphis (2000).
31. Zezima, M. (=Mickey Z.). Nothing but human rights (2001).
32. Perkins, John. Confessions of an economic hit man: How the U.S. uses globalization to cheat poor countries out of trillions (2004).
33. Most readers of these lines—and most of my friends and students—fail to realize humanity’s environmental predicament. For an introduction, see Reference 41 below. The danger is not just one or another threat, but the multiplicity of such threats, the ceaseless creations of new ones, and the psychopathic negligence of our rulers. Take the following example of the bankers’ war on nature: Consolo, Christina. Fukushima apocalypse: Years of ‘duct tape fixes’ could result in ‘millions of deaths’ (2013). Now multiply it by 1,000. Then ask yourself two simple questions: Even if Consolo is an alarmist, can we survive so many lower-level threats? And: Do we deserve to survive?
34. Baldacci, David. The Innocent, 2012, p. 568.
35. Daftary, Farhad. Hasan Sabbah (2009).
36. Agencia de Noticias IRNA. Capitulo 20: Isma’ilíes 1080-1256.
38. Pierson, David S. Natural killers —turning the tide of battle.
39. Kilner, Pete. Military leaders’ obligation to justify killing in war (2000).
41. Nissani, Moti. The folly of electoral politics and the imperative merger of the humanitarian camp (2013).
42. Quoted from the Russell-Einstein Manifesto (1955).
43. A quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson.
A Revolutionary's Toolkit