The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses…This little coterie…runs our government for their own selfish ends. It operates under cover of a self-created screen…seizes…our executive officers… legislative bodies… schools… courts… newspapers and every agency created for the public protection.”––John F. Hylan, Mayor of New York, 1918-1925
The US Government – operating today under the control of an international banking cartel – is running a global empire whose sole aim is to exploit the many for the benefit of the few.—Gordon Gekko, 2013
This fifth posting of the Bird’s Eye View of Contrived Terror series continues to compare the plausibility of two alternative views of the origins of contemporary terror. The official view ascribes all terror incidents to radical, half-crazed, militants while the dissident view traces most terror incidents to the American government and its masters, the international bankers (=the Syndicate). Two historical patterns throw additional light on this controversy: 1. To convince reluctant Americans to go to war, the bankers typically resort to false-flag operations (government conspiracies involving deliberate murders of dozens, hundreds, or thousands of Americans), lies, and fabrications. 2. A survey of hundreds of influential American dissidents over the last 150 years or so points to an incontrovertible generalization: The government maligned, harassed, incarcerated, and executed almost all such dissidents. Although these two patterns of mass murder and deceit cannot by themselves decide between the two alternatives views, they are far more congruent with the dissident view.
Current postings of “A Bird’s Eye View of Contrived Terror”:
II. Backdrop of Terror
III. The Gladio Conspiracy
IV. 19 Telltale Signs of Fake Terror
VI. Give me Logic or Give me Terror
Hassan al Sabbah, a brilliant Iranian polymath and tactician, was the founder of the Order of the Assassins. This Shia Order flourished for about 200 years, mostly in Iran and Syria, starting in the late 11th century. The Order delivered tangible assassination threats (e.g., placing a dagger on a target’s bed) to rulers contemplating pogroms and persecutions of Shia Muslims. If the threats were ignored, the target was killed. Al Sabbah’s strategy of asymmetrical warfare was astoundingly effective, minimizing bloodshed and bringing to heel such figures as the Sultan Salah A’din. The connection between this strategy and the bogus war on terror will be explored in Part VI.
This one-before-last posting explores two historical patterns which lend additional—albeit circumstantial—support to the view which imputes most incidents of terror to the international bankers and to their scullions in such places as the White House, the Pentagon, and Langley.
Only when it is dark enough can you see the stars.–Martin Luther King
The bankers would have us believe that most Americans love war. The historical evidence, however, supports Dwight Eisenhower’s view:
I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it.
The international bankers, generals, and spooks, however, love war. War gives these amoral rulers of ours more power and riches. Moreover, by brutalizing, disempowering, and impoverishing the vast majority, war satisfies the bankers and their lackeys’ blood lust, spitefulness, and sense of self-importance. War costs these perverts nothing in personal terms: it is the people, and only the people, who pay for wars with their blood, sweat, tears, liberties, and tax dollars.
It should not surprise us, therefore, that Americans had to be conned into just about every war of the last 160 years or so.
The Mexican “War” (1846-1848)
Dr. Paul L. Atwood of the University of Massachusetts (War and Empire, 2010, pp. 70-71):
In 1844, James Polk, a wealthy slave owner and cotton planter, was elected president and quickly became the agent of war and more expansion. Pretext would again be the method as it would for virtually every war thereafter. The first stage of the war against Mexico, the real aim of which was to annex all of what is now the American south-west, California and Oregon, began by bringing what was then called the independent republic of Texas into the Union. ...
Both Mexico and the United States had recognized the Nueces River as their common border but now Polk insisted that the boundary was the Rio Grande, about 150 miles to the south. He sent a large American force under General Zachary Taylor to that river. ... All that remained was to wait for an incident that could then be used to justify war. It was not long in coming. On April 25, 1846 an American patrol was ambushed by Mexican forces and 16 soldiers were killed, the rest wounded and captured. Polk had his pretext. (italics mine)
The Spanish-American “War”
Historian Atwood again:
As in many other cases of American conflicts the Spanish-American War was fomented on outright lies and trumped up accusations against the intended enemy, and was foisted by politicians, press and pulpit on a public reeling from the grim consequences of a lengthy depression. ...
War fever in the general population never reached a critical temperature until the accidental sinking of the USS Maine was deliberately, and falsely, attributed to Spanish villainy. ...
In a cryptic message ... [influential] Senator lodge wrote that ‘There may be an explosion any day in Cuba which would settle a great many things. We have got a battleship in the harbor of Havana, and our fleet, which overmatches anything the Spanish have, is masked at the Dry Tortugas.’ Then on February 15 the prescribed explosion occurred, killing over 250 sailors and marines. ... While it is generally agreed today that the USS Maine was sunk by the internal buildup of coal dust, war hawks at the time rapidly blamed the sinking on Spanish treachery.
As a result of this cynically imperialistic war, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam “became de facto American colonies, exploited as bases for the American navy and for their resources, their people now serving American masters. ... When Filipinos rose in rebellion against the army that had claimed to free them, the US had its first counter-insurgency jungle war which it waged with utmost brutality, killing upwards of 200,000 civilians, the greatest number of civilian deaths up to that time. (excerpted from War and Empire, pp. 98-103)
One Pretext for World War I: The Lusitania Conspiracy (1915)
And I can’t help but wonder, now Willie McBride,
Do all those who lie here know why they died?
Did you really believe them when they told you ‘The Cause?’
Did you really believe that this war would end wars?
The suffering, the sorrow, the glory, the shame
The killing, the dying, it was all done in vain,
For Willie McBride, it all happened again,
And again, and again, and again, and again.–Eric Bogle
Listen: No Man’s Land
The same crowd which manipulated the passage of the income tax and the Federal Reserve System wanted America in the war. J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, ‘Colonel’ House, Jacob Schiff, Paul Warburg and the rest of the Jekyll Island conspirators were all deeply involved in getting us involved. Many of these financiers had loaned England large sums of money. In fact, J. P. Morgan & Co. served as British financial agents in this country during World War I.
The sinking of the Lusitania, May 7, 1015. 1195 people lost their lives, including 128 Americans.
This view is corroborated by none other than then-Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan: “The large banking interests were deeply interested in the world war because of the wide opportunities for large profits.”
We have seen already the role the USS Maine played in instigating the Spanish-American “War.” The Rothschilds and Rockefellers, it would seem, have a penchant for sinking ships. The next ship to go down—and to serve as one of the pretexts for World War One, was the Royal Mail Ship Lusitania.
The Lusitania was a British ocean liner which, during the first year of World War I, served in the dual role of carrying passengers and British Government cargoes. During that year, the British Navy carried out an illegal blockade of Germany, thereby depriving Germany of much-needed imports, and reducing much of the German population to conditions of under-nutrition. In retaliation, Germany relied on U-boats to create a blockade of the British Isles. In 1915 the Lusitania was torpedoed as part of this overall campaign. Its sinking “provoked great outrage in the United States and helped create the climate of public opinion that would later  allow America to join the war.”
Almost a century later, there is overwhelming evidence that, although the Germans did sink the Lusitania, the UK and the USA did everything they could to help them do so. Moreover, the Wilson Administration deliberately and willfully suppressed German warnings to American citizens not to board the Lusitania on its last voyage.
Historian and former British naval intelligence officer Patrick Beesly sums up:
There was a conspiracy deliberately to put the Lusitania at risk in the hope that even an abortive attack on her would bring the United States into the war. Such a conspiracy could not have been put into effect without Winston Churchill’s express permission and approval.
Pearl Harbor (December 7, 1941): How the USA was maneuvered into World War II
The question was how should we maneuver them [Japan] into firing the first shot… it was desirable to make sure the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt as to who were the aggressors. (Henry Stimson, U.S. Secretary of War prior to WWII, Nov. 25, 1941 in a journal documenting his conversation with President Roosevelt)
As in the case of all previous wars touched upon here, in 1941 the bankers, weapons-makers, and generals wanted war, badly. By then, however, (i) the USA was too powerful for anyone to dare fight it and (ii) the majority of Americans (83%) had no wish to meddle in European affairs.
Independent historical scholarship has shown since that bankers and their agents in Washington got the war they wanted by their time-honored trick of maximally provoking the Japanese to attack, knowing about the attack in advance and doing nothing about it to con the American people to support war, unfairly blaming the Pearl Harbor commanders, and sacrificing valuable 2402 lives, valuable war gear, and the reputations and careers of at least three innocent commanders.”
Major Escalation of the Vietnam Neo-Colonization: The Tonkin Gulf Conspiracy (1964)
Historian Paul Atwood:
Despite every conceivable military advantage the [South Vietnam Army] enjoyed in weapons provided by the US the South Vietnamese government was about to fall . ... Realizing that the regime the US had created ... was about to fall to the very citizens it purported to represent, Johnson’s only hope of preventing that lay in inserting American troops.
On August 2, 1964 Johnson suddenly interrupted television broadcasting with a live speech to the American public charging North Vietnamese communists with an attack on a naval vessel, the USS Maddox, in international waters. Two days later he charged them with an attack on another ship, though both charges were false. In response Johnson ordered the first bombing of North Vietnam and won from Congress the Tonkin Gulf Resolution effectively giving him a blank check to wage war in Vietnam. Most Americans reflexively believed their president.
But Johnson was lying. American naval vessels had long been assisting South Vietnamese ... forces to attack northern coastal facilities and were thus violating North Vietnam’s territorial waters under international law. The North Vietnamese were simply defending their territory and wanted to create an incident that would demonstrate that the US was covertly waging war against their regime. ...
[The Johnson’s] administration had been looking for a pretext to bring American firepower to bear and got it by falsifying what had really occurred in the Gulf of Tonkin, and he was aided and abetted by the American press which reported only his version of events. (War and Empire, pp. 193-4)
For a more recent appraisal, see Kieran Kelly.
Iraqi Genocide #1: 1990-1991
In his endeavor to seize Kuwait Saddam Hussein had reason to believe that the US would take no position and would refrain from interfering. The American ambassador to Baghdad had said as much herself. Whether this was a trap set for Saddam to provide a pretext for American troops to enter the Middle East in force is open to debate. (p. 218).
In fact, the entire invasion was based on a tissue of lies. In one much-publicized incident and accepted at face value by the entire banker media, a young Kuwaiti girl who only provided her first name as Nayirah appeared as a witness before Congressional Human Rights Caucus. Teary-eyed, she related seeing Kuwaiti babies cruelly being taken out of incubators and left to die.
Though reporters did not then have access to Kuwait, her testimony was regarded as credible at the time and was widely publicized. It was cited numerous times by United States senators and the president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War.
Like Pearl Harbor, the whole episode was a shameless conspiracy. She was in fact the daughter of Al-Sabbah, a member of the ruling clan and the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States (that is why she was only referred to by her first name). She had been coached in the art of lying and acting by an American public relations firm.
The real reason for the invasion of Iraq, as John Perkins observed, is that Saddam, albeit a ruthless dictator, felt that Iraq should control its own destiny and riches. He refused to succumb to the pressure of economic hit men, and he committed the unforgivable crime of slighting the bankers’ favorite fiat currency, the American dollar. As an ex-CIA operative, he knew that the next step would be assassination attempts, and wisely took extreme precautions. Sooner or later, such cases call for direct invasion of the recalcitrant country.
Iraqi Genocide #2: 2003-2011
Most of us still remember the official rationales for the 2003-2011 neo-colonization of Iraq. It is common knowledge now that the occupation can be traced to the imperial ambitions of the USA, to long-term attempts to subjugate China, Russia, and a few other countries not yet entirely subservient to the American government and its masters, to the fact that Iraq possesses vast oil fields that the bankers wished to control, and to the fact that Iraq sought to undermine the petrodollar–a key pillar of America’s hegemonic edifice.
Machiavellianism would however fail to persuade American people to go to war. Instead, the bankers’ presstitutes led the naïve public to believe that Iraq had nuclear weapons which posed a threat to the American people (a proven lie), that Saddam Hussein was a particularly vicious dictator and that we had a moral duty to liberate the Iraqi people (a lie, he was a dictator alright, but comparatively better than some of the dictators we installed and patronized and, anyway, the presstitutes forgot to mention that USA put him in power in the first place), and that he supported the CIA creation that went by the name of Al Qaida (another lie, he detested militant Muslims).
Implications for Contemporary Terror
Since the bankers and their allies (i) routinely and brazenly lied us into wars that killed millions and harmed billions; (ii) were at times willing to massacre hundreds or thousands of Americans, attribute the massacres to an imaginary enemy, and drag the country to war against that “enemy,” (iii) are the main beneficiaries of the “war on terror,” (as will be shown in forthcoming Part VI of this series), is it unreasonable to suspect that they employ similarly vicious tactics to perpetrate terror?
Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.–President Woodrow Wilson
Who Killed Michael Hastings? (June 18, 2013)
Michael Hastings belonged to that privileged handful of mainstream journalists who are permitted to expose the underbelly of a hopelessly corrupt system. He was a “fearless journalist whose reporting brought down the career of General Stanley McChrystal, ... Hastings’ unvarnished 2010 profile of McChrystal in the pages of Rolling Stone, ‘The Runaway General,’ captured the then-supreme commander of the U.S.-led war effort in Afghanistan openly mocking his civilian commanders in the White House.” Elsewhere, Hastings accurately described McChrystal’s staff as “a handpicked collection of killers, spies ... political operators and outright maniacs.”
The maelstrom sparked by [Hastings]. . . concluded with President Obama recalling McChrystal to Washington and the general resigning his post.
Hastings was critical of other powerful Generals. Here is what he said about another prominent traitor, General David Petraeus:
He’s … a world-class bullshit artist ... He essentially armed and trained what later became known as ‘Iraqi death squads.’ He … took the Shiites’ side in a civil war, armed them to the teeth, and suckered the Sunnis into thinking we’d help them out too ... Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives during a sectarian conflict that Petraeus’ policies fueled ... The reputations of the men who were intimately involved in these years of foreign misadventure, where we tortured and supported torture, armed death squads, conducted nightly assassinations, killed innocents, and enabled corruption on an unbelievable scale, lie in tatters.
Michael knew that he was playing with psychopaths and told a friend that “he would be hunted down and killed over [the] McChrystal story.”
So, like the late Hugo Chavez, the late Deborah Jeane Palfrey, and so many others, Hastings naively tried to protect himself by identifying his would-be killers,recounting the following conversation with several McChrystal staff members:
“You’re not going to f*ck us, are you?” asks one staff member.
Hastings responds: “I’m going to write a story; some of the stuff you’ll like, some of the stuff you probably won’t like.”
Another staffer then says: “We’ll hunt you down and kill you if we don’t like what you write.”
Hastings’ humanism took him to places where only few dare to tread. Thus, he was “a vocal critic of the surveillance state, referring to the restrictions on the freedom of the press by the government as a ‘war’ on journalism.”
As if all these intrepid acts of investigative journalism were not enough, by June 2013 Hastings ventured deep into the hyena’s den. By then, he was muckraking the mother of all death squads (the CIA) along with the NSA, setting the ground for what he felt was his “biggest story yet.”
This, naturally, did not endear him to the generals or death squads. By mid-June, despite the death squads’ (FBI’s) assertions to the contrary, the FBI was “investigating” and harassing him. Hastings was getting worried, and told his friends (which means, in this upside-down surveillance world of ours, that he also alerted the death squads that time was running out for them) that he planned to go into hiding.
Michael’s plans of going “off the radar for a bit,” were tragically cut short. On June 18, 2013, just a few hours after the NSA learned about these plans (presumably, by illegally reading his correspondence), Michael, aged 33, died in a car “accident.”
Let it be noted here that this was a rather peculiar car “accident.” One witness said that “it sounded like a bomb went off in the middle of the night. My house shook; the windows were rattling.” Another witness said that an engine flew from the car about 50 yards away.
Such testimonies make a mockery of the death squads’ (FBI’s) version of events, raising instead the specter of explosion caused by a bomb placed in the in the car itself or hurled at it.
Sgt. Joe Biggs, Michael’s close friend, said that “something didn’t feel right” after Hastings sent a panicked email saying the authorities were on his tail, adding that the story of Michael driving at high speed in the early hours of the morning was completely out of character. Hastings, Biggs said, was “very paranoid that he was being watched by the FBI.”
Biggs went public because Hastings’ other friends and colleagues who received the e-mail about going off the radar just hours before his death were “too scared” to do so. After the email was released, Hastings’ wife thanked Biggs and vowed to “take down whoever did this.” Biggs, who met Hastings when he was an embedded journalist in Afghanistan in 2008, added,
I won’t let a man die in vain because I’m too scared of what will happen to me. If I sent that email to Mike he wouldn’t rest, he would fight.
Now, let us put this story in context.
1. Let us recall a short phrase from the death squad’s (CIA’s) 1954 Assassination Manual: “For secret assassination, either simple or chase, the contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated.”
2. Indeed! And let us recall too, that nowadays, “The Obama administration and the Justice Department have openly claimed the authority to assassinate American citizens anywhere in the world if they are deemed a national security threat. A number of American citizens have already been killed as a result of this policy. Is it really that crazy to suggest that Michael Hastings was merely the latest victim of this doctrine?”
3. Next, note that everyone in the USA knows, deep down, that the CIA and FBI are in fact official death squads. How else could you explain the fact that Hastings sent his “off the radar” e-mail to many friends and yet, even though this e-mail was critically important to any impartial investigation of the case, only one person, fully knowing that he was risking his life, came forward and divulged the content of that letter? What exactly were they afraid of? Muslim terrorists? Defenders of the Second Amendment? Or the bankers, death squad alphabet soups (FBI, CIA, NSA ...), and the generals?
A Pattern of Assassinations
OK, you might say, all this raises the possibility that the invisible government killed Michael Hastings, but can one be sure?
The answer, very simply, is: yes one can. No one claims 100% certainty, for such certainty does not exist anywhere, including the natural sciences. Scientists conveniently accept a statement with at least 95% probability as in fact true, and this is what assassination theorists claim in the Hastings case.
This seemingly outrageous claim is not based on the circumstances of Hastings’ death, although these circumstances are suspicious enough. Rather, the key to this conviction is a historical pattern of harassments, lies, incarcerations, and assassinations, going at least as far back as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
When I used to play with elephants, I mistakenly prided myself on being a member of the most dangerous profession. In fact, the professionals under the greatest possible threat (close to 100% chance of intrusive surveillance, incarceration, character assassination, or murder) are either (i) influential humanitarians like Marley, King, Einstein, Ghandi, and Lennon (shown above), or (ii) hapless thorns on the sides of the bankers.
For decades, a few historians have been researching a simple question: What is the likely fate of anyone who, intentionally or through happenstance, is a thorn in the side of the international bankers, multinational corporations, generals, and spooks? To throw light on this question, they have by now collated an extensive list of inconvenient persons and found out that almost all met with an unfortunate fate. This pattern forcefully suggests that, to maintain their power, the bankers and their allies routinely and consistently murder or silence inconvenient people.
I too have been collecting hundreds of influential enemies (and thorns in the sides) of the bankers, and so far have been able to identify there who managed to reach old age fairly unscathed: Upton Sinclair, Albert Einstein, and Pete Seeger.
It will take a book-length manuscript (available at no cost in a few months and bearing the title License to Kill: The Decisive Role of Political Murders, Scandal-Mongering, and False-Flag Operations in American Politics) to corroborate the existence of such a pattern. Here, let me try to convince the reader via a shortcut.
The Predictive Power of the Assassination Hypothesis: The Curious Case of Imran Khan
The appeal of any theory is derived in part from its predictive power. After delving into the gory field of political assassinations, researchers find themselves in the uneasy position of being able to answer the question “who is next?” for they know by then where the bankers draw the line. When anyone crosses that line, accidentally or by design, it is just a matter of time before the bankers spring into action: arrest her or someone she cares about on phony charges, destroy her reputation, or kill her.
Instead of proving the existence of a pattern by reproducing my entire dead-men-walking list, let me illustrate the predictive power of the assassination theory in just one documented case.
That case in point involves Imran Khan, a highly accomplished ex-cricket player and a decade-long captain of Pakistan’s national cricket team. Khan planned to run for the top political office in Pakistan in the first half of 2013. Among other things, he promised to challenge Pakistan’s neo-colonial master, the USA, on its massive drone assassination program in his country. The Pakistani government then, he said, was complicit in this violation of Pakistani sovereignty and the murder of numerous innocent civilians. By October 2012, Khan was “planning to lead peace activists on 300-mile, two-day rally to South Waziristan, scene of dozens of drone strikes, to draw world attention to the plight of civilian populations living in fear of the drones buzzing overhead.” Moreover, Khan promised that “at first I will strive to convince the US to stop these attacks but if they refuse to do so I will ask our air force to shoot down drone intruders.”
Imran Khan: Wounded and unbowed
As usual, the bankers tried to intimidate Khan. By October 27, 2012, during a stopover in Toronto, Canada, Khan was forcibly removed from his flight by the Unites States Customs and Border Protection agency and interrogated for over an hour. The State Department has moreover let it be known that it views Mr. Khan as “an enemy of the United States.” http://www.activistpost.com/2012/10/us-government-interrogates-pakistani.html
When he arrived in the USA, this probable head of state of a major American ally was, as might be expected from our dear bankers, exposed to a belittling and offensive corporate media interview. On October 29, 2012, I added the following reflections to a Gordon Duff’s description of this menacing interview:
Pakistan is a colony of the USA, and the USA doesn’t take kindly to colonial insubordination. Can you imagine the losses to American weapon makers if Khan is allowed to become president of his country? And what about the plans to encircle Russia and China and achieve ‘full spectrum dominance’? And if Pakistan is allowed to prove the superiority of peace over war, what will happen to the bankers, generals, and drug runners? What about the Orwellian war on terror? And what would happen to American and Israeli plans of fragmenting and dehumanizing Islam?
I suspect that Khan was detained in Toronto and not in the New York City (his destination) because the purpose of the whole exercise was not interrogation but a death threat. Khan was detained in order to remind him that the USA is powerful enough to have him arrested (or assassinated, if need be) anywhere on this planet. His detention and the belligerent corporate media interview constitute a death threat, pure and simple. The CIA and the Mossad are presenting him with a choice: Betray your people and serve as our lackey and we’ll make you even richer than you are already. Refuse, and we’ll kill you.
I’m thus filled with foreboding and dread. Thousands of foreign and American leaders and activists have already been assassinated by our Invisible Government, including probably Benazir Bhutto, her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq. Imran Khan, or perhaps a family member or a close associate, could very well be next.
Sadly, it didn’t take long for the prediction—which was based on the empirical generalization that the international bankers have a license to kill their foreign and domestic intentional and accidental enemies and that they use that license freely and often—to come true:
Leading Pakistani politician Imran Khan injured his head and back on Tuesday at a campaign rally when he fell from a make-shift mechanical lift in Lahore just four days before the much-anticipated May 11 elections. Television footage from local TV station Geo TV showed Khan and his two bodyguards fall 15 feet, and then followed with footage of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) leader being carried away into a private car with his eyes closed and blood smearing the side of his face.
This assassination attempt failed to intimidate Khan:
After the “fall” that nearly killed him, Khan, by then the leading candidate for the post of Pakistani prime minister, “has again vowed to shoot down American drones if elected.”
By June 11, 2013, Khan correctly described his fall as a “plot to assassinate him.”
And again as predicted, given Khan’s courage and defiance, by May 19, 2013 the bankers made the next move on their bloodstained chessboard:
A senior female Pakistani politician has been shot dead in the southern port city of Karachi. Zahra Shahid Hussain was the senior vice-president of Pakistan’s Movement for Justice party (PTI), led by former international cricketer Imran Khan.
Allow me in passing to stick my neck out and make another prediction. If Imran stays true to his vow “to release Pakistan from US slavery,” and if at any time in the future he appears likely to win the elections or to have a significant impact on Pakistani politics, the bankers will go after him again and this time around, terminate Imran Khan’s dream to free Pakistan from the bankers and set it on a course of justice and peace. The cause of death? The bankers’ favorites, history shows, include suicide, car or plane accident, assassination by a crazed individual, cancer, or heart attack.
Implications for Contemporary Terror
Now, since it would appear that the bankers, their allies, and underlings, routinely murder their influential opponents or those who accidentally stand in their way, doesn’t it make sense to view the bankers as the prime suspects in each and every circumstance of terror? To be sure, by itself, this pattern of assassination does not prove that most terror episodes are acts of state. Nonetheless, this pattern is more compatible with that assertion than with the official mantra (which traces all terror incidents to fringe groups or individuals).
You may ask: Besides life in an upside-world, besides
19 telltale signs of fake terror, besides conclusive evidence that
government detonated the Boston bombs, besides the government’s
of lying us into war or killing hundreds or thousands American to
drag us into
war, besides government assassinations of hundreds of influential
threatened the status quo or of people who just happened to be
caught in the
maelstrom of the government’s malfeasance, are there still more
ways of giving
the lie to the “war on terror?” Yes there are. Moreover, as will
see in the
next and final segment of this series, the last two refutations
VI. Give me Logic or Give me Terror A Revolutionary's Toolkit