Beware narrative immersion: the human gift (or weakness) to ‘suspend disbelief’—a deep psychological miracle, but so natural we hardly take notice. By its power, asleep, we accept our dreams; awake, we enter a dreamlike state and (almost) forget the imaginary nature of fiction.
Fictional heroes and monsters (almost) literally possess us. We identify. We empathize. We love, grieve, hate, and fear… Real gasps escape our throats; real tears stream down our cheeks. We live and inhabit the make believe and render it (almost) real. Strong stuff—so strong, that several multi-billion-dollar industries (from novels to comics to theater to television to film) make a living from our narrative immersion.
As do the ‘news’ industries.
Don’t look so shocked. You don’t make State-level decisions from Mount Olympus. The entire world of Affairs, of Politics and International Relations comes to you, if it comes at all, not directly through your senses but mediated by… the media! They give you the narrative, replete with heroes and monsters. But you are shown the world rather than told a story. (Or so you think.) Hence, you identify completely. Narrative immersion here is total: you don’t just suspend disbelief—you believe.
With some effort, you may ‘snap out’ of a novel or film, but ‘snapping out’ of the news means ‘snapping out’ of reality. That’s harder. But it can be done. A dreamer may spy, out of the corner of the mind’s eye, an absurdity, look at it, and come awake; the media dreamer may do the same.
The recent accusation that Bashar al Assad dropped chemical weapons on civilians in Syria, following which Trump dropped missiles on Assad, is one such ‘splinter in the mind.’ A diagnostic thread. Pull it, and the veil of mainstream media narrative drops, revealing the world’s true structure. Let us pull with a series of connected questions, as follows:
1. Does the accusation make logical sense?
2. Are Assad’s accusers, the White Helmets, credible?
3. Would White Helmets collude with jihadis to attack civilians?
4. Is it possible that jihadis and White Helmets staged a fake ‘chemical attack’?
5. Might the White House and the White Helmets collude to attack civilians?
6. Is Trump supporting jihad, then? Yes…
7. But isn’t Trump at least confronting Iran? No…
8. And what is Russia doing?
1. Does the accusation make logical sense?
Every day, in Syria, a child is ridden with bullets, crushed by buildings, burned to bone, or blown to pieces. And the world goes on. If they tell us, however, that a Syrian child died in Assad’s alleged chemical attack, the world stops. We fret, we wring our hands, we suffer. And demand retaliation. Magic? No. Conditioning. Total media saturation has impressed on the mind the horror (the horror…) of chemical weapons.
But notice: precisely because we do live in this media-conditioned mental environment, for Assad to drop chemicals on civilians would be to help his local enemies recruit, and to give his powerful Western enemies cover to attack him. Is he that stupid?
Or perhaps you think he is simply a monster?
But a monster wants to maximize dead bodies, and chemical weapons are “not a particularly effective way of killing people,” explains an analysis by Vice. The ideal target for them was a WWI soldier: a “sitting duck” stuck in low-lying trenches. And yet, even there, “ ‘gas achieved but local success, nothing decisive,” says the official British history of that war; “ ‘it made war uncomfortable, to no purpose.’ ”
The tactical challenge remains, for chemical weapons are usually delivered via bombs, artillery, or missiles that destroy much of the chemical agent. “The slightest change in wind, dampness, or sunlight can hugely affect their potency.” And a capricious gust may waft them back—as it did the first time, at the 1915 Battle of Loos—on the attacker’s position!
To say, then, that Assad uses chemical weapons to kill people—because he is a ‘monster’—is to call him an imbecile.
Or perhaps you think that Assad—given the horror we feel—uses chemical weapons as psychological warfare? In that case we should expect him to brag loudly, letting everybody know that he might use them again. But Assad hotly denies the accusations.
Mind you, I’m not
defending Assad; I’m saying he’s probably not an imbecile. An average mind
can figure this out: the psychological warfare payoff lies not in using
chemical weapons but in accusing others of doing so. Thus,
we should ask:
2. Are Assad’s accusers, the White Helmets, credible?
Assad was accused by ‘White Helmets,’ formally ‘Syrian Civil Defense,’ which calls itself a volunteer civilian rescue organization.
If you watched the super-slick, tear-jerking, Oscar-winning Netflix documentary about them—where they appear as heroes, pulling civilians out of the Syrian rubble—you may think White Helmets would never lie, never hurt a fly.
Plus, White Helmets have won “endorsements from A-list Hollywood celebrities like George Clooney and Justin Timberlake, as well as Hillary Clinton and British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson.” And if you did hear anything bad, Wikipedia claims that’s a Russian/Iranian “disinformation campaign.”
Who will dare to say that Wikipedia, Hillary Clinton, the British Government, and Hollywood are on the wrong side of this? We will. We find the following information convincing (none of it from Russians or Iranians).
First, though White Helmets say they only save civilians and take no sides in the Syrian conflict, the New York Times once reported that Raed Saleh, White Helmets leader, became “livid”—he was so upset—when the US bombed jihadi targets in Syria. He demanded that bombs be dropped on Assad instead.
Isn’t that taking sides? In fact, isn’t that a pro-jihadi bias?
Well, let’s run a test: Does White Helmets ever accuse jihadis? I typed (in quotes) the string “white helmets accuse” into Google and found that, for years, they’ve been accusing “Syrian forces,” the “Assad regime,” “Government Forces” (all synonyms for Assad) and “Russia.” But jihadis? Not once. Curious, no? Because jihadis attack civilians all the time—it’s their doctrine.
And given this doctrine, would jihadis tolerate do-gooder saviors of civilians? Obviously not. But look: White Helmets are “embedded exclusively in terrorist-held parts of Syria.”
Curiouser and curiouser…
Might White Helmets be a front? Are they one with the terrorists? That would explain video footage on the internet that shows them celebrating with Nusra Front jihadists. Other videos show White Helmets at jihadi public executions!
And there is another way to try and test this.
What do the Rojavans in northern Syria think about White Helments? The Rojavans defend civilians of all ethnicities and religions and have created a democratic system where women are fully equal to men. Moreover, they’ve been the most effective fighters against the jihadis, and especially ISIS.
Well, Rojavans don’t want any White Helmets and seem to consider them enemy agents. They “closed the[ir] centre and arrested the volunteers who worked [in Rojavan territory],” as relayed on the White Helmets Twitter account. Now, “after two and a half years of prohibition,” White Helmets are back thanks to Turkey, which invaded Rojava’s Afrin Canton.
Next test: What do White Helmets think of this invasion?
“the White Helmets did not make any statements of condemnation against killings perpetrated by the Turkish Armed Forces and their FSA [‘Free Syrian Army’] partners. Rather, official public pronouncements often used similar terminology to that of the Turkish State.”[5a]
This once again points in the same direction, because Turkey is directly responsible for flooding Syria with jihadis.
Given all this, the
following question begs for an answer:
3. Would White Helmets collude with jihadis to attack civilians?
Human Rights Watch is usually so soft on jihadi terrorists that it prefers to call them “armed groups” or “militants.” Sometimes, they apologize for them outright. And yet, in 2015, even HRW condemned “armed groups” in Eastern Ghouta, Syria, for attacking civilians:
“Syrian armed groups are endangering civilians, including women, and detaining soldiers by placing them in metal cages throughout Eastern Ghouta. The armed groups say they are doing that to deter indiscriminate government [i.e. Assad’s] attacks on the area.”
First: Why deploy caged civilians? Answer: “[Jihadis] say that they are doing that to deter indiscriminate government [i.e. Assad’s] attacks on the area.” But that only works if Assad prefers not to kill civilians.
Second: This was happening “throughout Eastern Ghouta.” And guess where the alleged chemical attack supposedly happened? That’s right! Eastern Ghouta.
What do we learn? That Assad was accused of dropping chemical weapons on civilians by jihadis who themselves attack civilians, and who stake their own lives on the theory that Assad prefers not to kill civilians.
I declare the White Helmets accusation null and void.
So, if chemical weapons were dropped on civilians, who’s the more likely culprit? These jihadis, I venture. And then they had their pals, the White Helmets, accuse Assad for propaganda gain.
But can jihadis get their hands on chemical weapons?
Not a problem, apparently. “Mustard gas and chlorine,” says Vice, “could probably be whipped up by some of Walter White’s more attentive students” (that’s a reference to Breaking Bad, a Netflix series about a high-school chemistry teacher who makes meth). “And even the ingredients for Sarin aren’t too difficult to obtain.” Really, all you need is “a laboratory and a competent chemist.”
So it’s easy. But even
so, I want to consider a further question:
4. Is it possible that jihadis and White Helmets staged a fake ‘chemical attack’?
The reason I ask is this: I made myself watch the video that White Helmets distributed, and which Newsweek posted.
Counting, it seems, on our gift (or weakness) for suspending disbelief, and the power of a world-famous authority—such as itself—to induce that suspension, Newsweek affixed the following notice to the first few seconds of video: “WARNING: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS GRAPHIC FOOTAGE.” I braced myself. Then relaxed. Nothing disturbing in that video. Nothing consistent with the aftermath of a chemical attack.
I can see no injuries or marks or stains or blemishes or other signs of deadly chemicals on any of the people shown—not even on their clothing! Nor can I spot suffering of any kind. All I see is some children that some adults are forcing to breathe into what looks like a respirator (which demonstrates only that some children were made to breathe into a respirator). Nobody seems distressed. Several other children, sitting or standing, are mostly ignored, or they are unceremoniously—and pointlessly—shuffled from one place to another. The kids don’t look scared. They just look (understandably) confused. Some of them get their noses briefly picked (I think) by an adult. And a few utterly passive and tranquil adults get hosed down.
That’s it, folks.
My favorite detail is this: the busy ones—those ‘tending’ to ‘victims’—have scarves around their noses and mouths, which is meant to suggest, I suppose, that deadly chemical agents are still in the air. But nobody protects the faces of the supposed victims.
If you are like me,
you can suspend disbelief as good as the next guy, but you need a modicum of
quality—professional actors, at least. This video doesn’t make the cut. Watch
it, then come back. If we can agree that Trump’s intelligence
experts cannot be duped by such low production values, then we must ask:
5. Might the US government be colluding with White Helmets to attack civilians?
As it turns out, “Syria Civil Defense [White Helmets]… is supported by the United States government.” How? Through USAID, whose official mission is “administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance.” Yes, but some call USAID “the new CIA.”
Why do they?
“In 2009… staffers on [congressional] oversight committees complained that USAID was running secret programs…
What was happening? Cloak-and-dagger ops to destabilize other countries, run by USAID via OTI, its Office of Transition Initiatives. Well, guess what? “Syrian Civil Defense [White Helmets] is USAID/OTI’s largest partner in Syria.”
But this makes sense, because White Helmets was launched by James Le Mesurier, point man for NATO’s bipartisan (Bush Sr. - Bill Clinton - Bush Jr. - Obama) Yugoslavia policy. This policy, which included support for the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a Muslim terrorist group, led to accusations of NATO war crimes. It also led to the destruction of Yugoslavia.
Supported by USAID—which poured 100 million euros into Kosovo in the first three years after the conflict—and steered by James Le Mesurier, “intelligence coordinator for Pristina City” (Kosovo’s capital) after the NATO intervention, the KLA became the government and Kosovo a criminal nightmare.
Thanks to NATO, the unemployment rate in Kosovo is officially around 45% (and “unofficially above 60%”), which helps steer desperate Albanians into the only real industries: crime and terrorism. This explains why “Kosovo has been referred to as ‘Europe’s capital of jihad.’ ” In fact, “per capita,” the number of people “[to go] from Kosovo… to join Islamists fighting ‘holy war’ in Syria” is “the highest number in Europe.”
“In sharp contrast to some countries, such as the UK, which are stripping jihadists of their nationality” (because a democracy must keep certain appearances), Kosovo prime minister Ramush Haradinaj “has said he is willing to have the fighters back.” He isn’t ashamed to say it: he loves jihadis. But no surprise there: Haradinaj is the former “KLA commander for western Kosovo.”
And whose kind of guy might Haradinaj be? Why, Donald Trump’s! Just this past February,
“USAID Assistant Administrator for Europe and Eurasia, Brock Bierman, met with Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj …[and]… announced a new USAID grant of $1.5 million.”
And how much for Le Mesurier’s other project: the Syrian White Helmets? USAID has given them upwards of 23 million.
Some reporters expressed confusion. Why all that money, they asked, when Raed Saleh, the White Helmets Syrian boss, is apparently so dangerous that he was once denied entry to the US?
After twisting himself into a pretzel, State Department spokesman Mark Toner gave this priceless reply:
“…[If there were] any individual, in any group, suspected of ties or relations with extremist groups, or that we believe to be a security threat to the United States, we would act accordingly, but that does not—by extension—mean that we condemn or would cut off ties to the group that that individual works for.”
Right, because war is peace, freedom is slavery, and “security-threat” “extremists” lead… humanitarian organizations.
You are living in the year 1984.
In sum, it seems that
White Helmets is a US Intelligence asset deployed as psychological warfare to
‘clean up’ the image of anti-Assad jihadists in Syria, whom the White House
sells as ‘democratic rebels.’ And it seems US Intelligence has used White
Helmets to stage a phony ‘chemical attack’ to gin up a good narrative for
dropping missiles on Assad.
6. But is Trump supporting jihad, then? Yes…
The media-imposed narrative is that Donald Trump hates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, whose policies Trump denounced as pro-jihadi. The alternative hypothesis says that Donald Trump is Barack Obama; or, if you prefer, Hillary Clinton.
Yes, I wrote that.
I understand your shock. On the campaign trail, Trump puffed and bellowed that he would confront jihadism, wasting no opportunity to attack Obama and Clinton for their Middle East policies, which—this is true—were a gift to jihadi terror groups and states. But, at HIR, we never believed Trump’s posturing.
Our model says that a bipartisan cartel runs the US; hence, alternating Republican and Democratic presidents only pretend to be different. In fact, they answer always to the same masters (the same who, we believe, also control the mainstream media narrative).
Like any scientific hypothesis, the HIR model should be tested. This means looking for diagnostic ‘natural experiments.’ One such is the Trump vs. Obama/Clinton contest, the sharpest-ever media-imposed contrast, and hence also the strongest test of our model. This is such a strong test, in fact, that even long-time readers of HIR—suspending disbelief under the influence of the presidential-campaign show and narrative—didn’t think our model would survive it.
What happened? Look: White Helmets, a group 1) created with Obama’s support; 2) endorsed by Hillary Clinton; and 3) essentially an appendage of jihadis in Syria, accused Assad of dropping chemical weapons, and then Trump jumped to drop missiles on Assad.
7. But is Trump at least confronting Iran? No….
The Iranian military is in Syria supporting its long-time protégé: Bashar al Assad. It may seem, therefore, that the missile drop on Assad was Trump keeping his promise to ‘confront Iran.’ But there is an alternative interpretation.
Consider the following chronology. A month ago, on April 3rd, Trump floated a ‘trial balloon’ to prepare the public for a US pullout from Syria: he wanted out now. His advisers convinced him to stay, went the story, but he “ ‘wasn’t thrilled about it, to say the least.’ ” Right after, on April 7th, came the alleged ‘chemical attack’ and Trump’s mid-April missiles. Was he changing course? Was he going ‘all in’? Not at all. After the perfunctory “pinprick strike” (as the Washington Post called it), the New York Times returned us, in late April, to the pullout narrative, and what’s coming: Greater Iran.
“Now that the dust has settled from the American strikes, with President Trump declaring ‘mission accomplished,’ … how does Syria move forward? …Seven years in, some now argue that the only realistic way to stop the war, prevent a jihadist resurgence and allow the country to move on is to acknowledge that Mr. Assad, with help from Iran and Russia, will remain in power and to effectively let him win.”
Gotta love the New York Times. War is peace, freedom is slavery, and jihadist Iran will “prevent a jihadist resurgence.”
Anyway. But what will US bosses do about Syria? Give it to Iran.
This forces on us two questions:
1) Why give Syria to Iran?
2) If that’s what US bosses want, then why drop missiles on Iran’s boy Assad?
I’ll take the second question first.
Iran is a totalitarian, nuclear-weapons hungry, theocratic exporter of jihadi terrorism that publicly vows to destroy Israel, the Middle East’s only democracy. And Syria borders Israel. So if US bosses mean to give Syria to Iran, they better make it look like an accident.
How to do that? First, immerse everybody in the media narrative that the US sucks at foreign policy (check!). Then, get yourself a president that is convincingly pro-Israel and anti-Iranian.
Enter crazy Trump. Why does that guy do anything? Who knows. He is moody and unpredictable. So he gets into one of his moods, shoots a lot of tweets, and pulls out of Syria. Nuts! But he does love Israel, doesn’t he? (He says it all the time). And he hates Iran. Look, he drops missiles on Iran’s boy Assad. If Trump gave Syria to Iran, then, that was an accident. See?
The missile strike was never meant to hurt Assad (hence, just a “pinprick”); rather, in combination with Trump’s public persona, it was meant to reinforce the proper political grammar (Trump = Iranian foe = Israeli friend) for the ‘mistakes were made’ narrative. This is a show.
But why give Syria to Iran?
Glad you asked. That was our first question, remember? It has a short and a long answer. Short: Trump will give Syria to Iran to complete a 40-year project of the US power elite: the creation of Greater Iran.
Now the long version.
When Ayatollah Khomeini—leader of the Iranian 1979 jihadi revolution—was still in Parisian exile, he expressed to Jimmy Carter his worry that the Iranian military might seize power before he could (and ruin his revolution). Could Carter help? Sure. The US had built the Iranian Shah’s military, and the CIA had created SAVAK, the Iranian secret police. Carter could help a lot, in fact.
According to US documents declassified in 2016, Carter “paved the way for [Khomeini’s] return [to Iran] by holding the Iranian army back from launching a military coup.” And once Khomeini started his revolution, “the Iranian military, which was under US influence, soon surrendered.”
Upon taking power, Khomeini absorbed the CIA’s creature, SAVAK, intact (and renamed it SAVAMA).
In Medialand’s narrative, things had a different appearance. To the TV cameras, Khomeini denounced the US as ‘Great Satan’ while his followers burned US flags in the streets and took the entire US embassy hostage. This show of ‘enmity’ was convincing because
1) contacts and understandings between Khomeini and US bosses were secret;
2) Ronald Reagan, a professional actor, breathed convincing fire back against Iran during the US presidential campaign; and
3) after taking office, Reagan’s weapons to Iran (the Iran-Contra Affair) were also kept secret.
(Incidentally, Khomeini bought those weapons with the billions of dollars the US paid to release the embassy hostages—a neat trick.)
US bosses had an ally. More accurately, a pet: PLO/Fatah (better known today as the ‘Palestinian Authority’). These terrorists were “the protectors for the American diplomatic community in Beirut [Lebanon].” And these American diplomats were closely monitoring PLO/Fatah’s arming and training of Khomeini’s guerillas, because that was happening… in Lebanon.
After the Iranian revolution, PLO/Fatah consolidated Khomeini’s secret services, helped create his Iranian Revolutionary Guard (which spawned the terrorist group Hezbollah), and even, for a while, served as Iran’s de facto foreign ministry.
As this was going on, Jimmy Carter began a bipartisan pressure buildup on Israel to make it relinquish to PLO/Fatah the territories of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza —territories that, if relinquished, according to a then-fresh (and secret) Pentagon study, would lead eventually to the destruction of Israel. Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr., and Bill Clinton kept the pressure up, which culminated, in 1993-94, with the Oslo Accords that brought PLO/Fatah—and therefore Iran—into said territories.
(Oh yes, PLO/Fatah and Iran are still very friendly. In fact, they recently signed an “all out cooperation” agreement.)
Suppose—just for the sake of argument—that US bosses meant to join Iran and PLO/Fatah territorially, or the closest thing, to prepare the destruction of Israel (just go with it). What would this require?
First, they would have to remove Iraq as a threat to Iran. Then, they would need to create the right political grammar for Iran to move westwards, thus creating Greater Iran.
After Reagan’s secret Iran-Contra weapons for Iran, which were used against Iraq, there was Bush Sr.’s 1991 Gulf War against Iraq, followed by Clinton’s ‘containment’ of Iraq, followed by Bush Jr.’s invasion of Iraq (see here for the full sequence). Result? Iraq was removed as a threat to Iran, and it got an Iranian-influenced, Shia, theocratic government.
This was all interpreted for the public in the ‘mistakes were made’ narrative.
Then, Bush Jr./Obama military policy in Iraq rather directly spawned ISIS. (More mistakes, they said, again and again, and always, somehow, in the same pro-jihadi direction…)
By thus immersing us in the resulting horror show—multiple slow beheadings!—US bosses made it grammatical for Obama (about to sign his nuclear deal) to argue that Iran should move West, as the ‘lesser of two evils,’ to defeat ISIS. This formalized somewhat the Iranian takeover of Iraq (to official US government applause). And it brought Iran into Syria, because ISIS was there too.
Now Trump will take the remaining step: get out of Syria and let Iran have it. As for Lebanon, the Iranian ayatollahs control that through Hezbollah. And inside Israel, thanks to the US, they have PLO/Fatah.
Result: Greater Iran.
This is a giant jihadi super state, controlling Iranian, Iraqi, and Syrian oil wealth, possessing a land corridor from Teheran to Israel’s northern border, plus a strategic territory inside Israel (via PLO/Fatah), and commanding a phenomenal arsenal sent by the US over the years to Iraq and Syria on the pretext of ‘fighting terrorism.’ Soon, the ayatollahs will have nuclear weapons.
The basic trend was already clear to us way back in 2005, when we explained that US policy in Iraq was pro-Iranian. In 2006, when the media immersed everybody in the narrative of an ‘imminent’ US attack on Iran, we stuck our neck out and predicted that the US would not attack Iran—not then, not later. We were right. And the next year we published the following map.
We predicted that, thanks to US policy, “Iran… will soon have a land corridor going all the way to the northern border of Israel.” A decade later, that’s done.
What explains our predictive success?
Social science is (or should be) like other sciences. You build a model and squeeze predictions from it. If your predictions don’t pan out, you modify the model or get a new one. And you keep doing this until your model becomes predictive.
At HIR we’ve bet on the following method. To understand US foreign policy, we need a model of the relevant actor: the handful of people who make State-level decisions: ‘the US power elite.’ To understand this tiny group, we must answer four questions:
1) Motivators: What is their ideology?
2) Goals: What are their plans?
3) Assets: What can they use?
4) Constraints: What are their limitations?
If you’ve done good science on these questions, then you can anticipate what the US power elite will try to do, because you know what they want and what they’ve got.
To do this right, ignore the received claims about intentions: press conferences, tweets, pundits, diplomatic statements, media ‘analyses’… Why? Because making claims has zero cost, and they don’t make claims to inform you but to immerse you in a narrative. As we’ve shown, the US power elite runs the world via the media narrative.
To emancipate yourself from that, focus only on the policies that cost lots of money, and on their results, reaching into history to find consistent patterns and trends. Based on that, you can build a model that will help you spot false narratives (e.g. ‘chemical attack’) and make policy predictions.
True, your predictions will be qualitative rather than quantitative. How many years until Greater Iran? Thirteen years ago, we couldn’t say. But we could say it would happen and ‘soon’—right on both counts. And Iran, we asserted, would not be attacked by the US—right again. We said “Trump’s policies in the Middle East will be quite similar to Obama’s”; different show, same thrust. Again, we were right. And “the Rojavans” in Northern Syria—the only tolerant, democratic movement in the country—“will be sacrificed,” we wrote, to “a combined Western/Turkish policy to destroy [them].” Done.
We’ve also been
predicting that—soon—Israel will be destroyed. Following that, we predict,
the entire democratic system, across the West, will collapse for good.
8. And what is Russia doing?
When the Nazis destroyed the European Jews, Western leaders were only accused of ‘cowardice’ and ‘stupidity.’ And yet, Nazism had emerged out of the international eugenics movement, led and funded by the most powerful families in the United States, families that kept on supporting Nazism right through the war, protected by the US government that absorbed tens of thousands of said Nazis into its intelligence services after the war.
You probably never heard all that before (it’s not part of the mainstream narrative), which makes it impossible for you to notice that US bosses have hit ‘repeat’ on the same strategy. When Israel is destroyed, sometime soon, Western bosses will be accused of ‘cowardice’ and ‘stupidity,’ nothing more, while the strong blame falls on the Iranian ayatollahs.
Yes, because Russian bosses have been directly supporting Iran’s takeover of Syria, and this is a big part of the media narrative. There are only two possibilities here:
1) US and Russian bosses are working together; their ‘rivalry’ is a show (like that put on by US and Iranian bosses);
2) Putin and Co. don’t get it: they cannot see that they are setting the US power-elite’s table.
But why would US and Russian bosses wish to destroy the Jews? Why did the Nazis? This is a deep question.
Our answer: totalitarians understand that the Enlightenment, the modern world of human rights and democracy, is impossible without Jewish thought ; conversely, a permanent totalitarian nightmare requires the destruction of the Jewish people. Otherwise, one cannot explain the giant investment to defame and then attack the Hebrews.
How long till the destruction of Israel? That’s a quantitative question. We cannot answer. It could be ten years. Maybe two. But it could be just hours away.
Because the narrative, you see, is now entirely in place. The Iranian barbarians are at the gate. The Israeli prime minister has announced that they probably have nuclear weapons. Trump adds to this narrative with his melodrama about scrapping the nuclear deal—entirely meaningless, since he won’t attack Iran. Or rather, meaningful to the narrative. Because “In response, Iran said it was preparing to restart uranium enrichment, key for making both nuclear energy and weapons.” Israel (they say) has attacked Iran in Syria. Retaliation is expected.
Here we go…
What will Trump do?
Caroline Glick explains that Obama wanted “to protect the Assad regime to placate Iran,” so Obama’s goal in Syria was limited to defeating ISIS. And Trump? “The Trump administration’s goal in Syria is the same goal that the Obama administration articulated: defeating the ‘Islamic State,’ or ISIS.” HIR translation: Trump, like Obama, is allowing Iran to swallow Syria.
Why is Trump—Mr. ‘Not-Obama,’ Mr. ‘Confront Iran’—doing that?
Glick finds the Wall Street Journal’s ‘explanation’ persuasive that Russia’s protection of Iran in Syria ties Trump’s hands: “[US Defense Secretary] Mattis said that ‘anything other than a ‘show strike’ risked broader escalation with the Russians in particular.’ ” Also, “U.S. allies Israel and Saudi Arabia are no match for Russia.”
Trump’s “pinprick” ‘explained.’ (Russia is so useful!)
New president, new style, new narrative—you are re-immersed. But the policy remains the same. (Snap out of it! Trump is Obama.)
There will be no help from Trump for Israel, not when Armageddon comes. And when Iran’s final attack begins, please don’t be surprised if Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and maybe Turkey (and perhaps even Russia!) join in.
But is the destruction of Israel inevitable? Is the collapse of the West? No. None of this was inevitable. And so long as Israel stands, it still isn’t.
Why? Because US bosses need for us to remain totally immersed in the current narrative—the narrative where they had nothing to do with this. If they lose that narrative, they need to halt the plan; else, they may lose power. Thus, if a large enough population of Westerners can awaken, this can all be stopped.
(But y’all do need to rise and shine. And fast.)
“International Organizations, Global Governance and the role of Neoliberal institutions in the promotion of Postmodern Imperialism”; Medium; 24 December 2017; Priya Singh.
“After U.S. Strikes, Syria Returns to War as Usual”; New York Times; 15 April 2018; by Ben Hubbard.
 “If the Ayatollah Khomeini was an enemy of the United States ruling elite, why did he adopt the CIA’s security service?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 23 Feb 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
Vincent Cannistraro was Director of NSC Intelligence from 1984 to 1987.
 Right after the Iranian Revolution,
SOURCE: P.L.O. Is Cool to Dayan Remarks; Statements Given Prominence; By MARVINE HOWE Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 15, 1979. p. A12 (1 page)
The New York Times explained a bit more about that in a 1980 article:
“The P.L.O. currently enjoys close ties with some of the Iranian revolutionary leaders who rose to power with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. One of the most intriguing delegates at the Fatah conference in Damascus at the end of May, for example, was Arbas-Agha Zahani whose nom de guerre is Abu Sharif. He was then the head of the Ayatollah’s Revolutionary Guards, or Pasdaran Enghelab, a post he resigned in a power play in June that was designed to weaken the position of the relatively ‘moderate’ President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr. (Abu Sharif was subsequently reappointed deputy chief of the Pasdaran Enghelab.) Abu Sharif rose to a position of influence thanks to the patronage of the present Iranian Defense Minister, Mustafa Chamran. Like Yasir Arafat, both Abu Sharif and Mustafa Chamran are fervent advocates of exporting Iran’s Islamic revolution to the rest of the Middle East - in particular, to the conservative states of the Arab Gulf.
Abu Sharif's links with Arafat, Abu Jihad and other key figures in the P.L.O. leadership date back to the early 1970’s, when he attended a guerrilla training course at a Fatah camp in Lebanon. After the downfall of the Shah, Abu Sharif and Mustafa Chamran relied heavily on their P.L.O. contacts for help in setting up a new secret police to replace the Sha's notoriouus Savak.
SOURCE: “TERROR: A SOVIET EXPORT”; New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Nov 2, 1980. pg. A.42; by Robert Moss
For more on the close relationship between Iran and PLO/Fatah, visit:
“PLO/Fatah and Iran: The Special Relationship”; Historical and Investigative Research; 25 May 2010; by Francisco Gil-White
 “GRAND THEATER: THE US, THE PLO, AND THE AYATOLLAH KHOMEINI: Why did the US government, in 1979, delegate to the PLO the task of negotiating the safety of American hostages at the US embassy in Tehran?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 10 Dec 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
 “Why Bush Sr.’s 1991 Gulf War? To Protect Iranian Islamism: Like father, like son: this is also the purpose of Bush Jr.’s war”; Historical and Investigative Research; 20 Dec 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
 “The Arab League, then and forever: What is the Arab League hoping to achieve in Annapolis? UNDERSTANDING ANNAPOLIS: AN HIR SERIES”; Historical and Investigative Research; 23 November 2007; by Francisco Gil-White.
 “Is Us Geopolitics Meant To Strengthen Or Weaken Democracy?”; from PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE AND POLITICAL GRAMMAR: AN HIR SERIES; Historical and Investigative Research; 17 May 2016, by Francisco Gil-White
 “Psychological Warfare Communication Research, and the Media”; from PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE AND POLITICAL GRAMMAR: AN HIR SERIES; Historical and Investigative Research; 17 May 2016, by Francisco Gil-White
 “The goals of the US power elite in historical perspective; from PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE AND POLITICAL GRAMMAR: AN HIR SERIES; Historical and Investigative Research; 17 May 2016, by Francisco Gil-White