|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.’[1] 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.”[2] 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.”[3] 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.[4] 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.”[5]
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.[6] 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.”[7]
Two points. 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.”[8] 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.[9] 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.”[10] How? Through USAID, whose official mission is
“administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance.” Yes, but
some call USAID “the new CIA.”[11] Why do they? “In 2009… staffers on
[congressional] oversight committees complained that USAID was running secret
programs… ‘We were told we
couldn’t even be told in broad terms what was happening because ‘people will
die,’ ’ said Fulton Armstrong, who worked for the
Senate Foreign Relations committee.”[12] What was happening?
Cloak-and-dagger ops to destabilize other countries, run by USAID via OTI, its Office of Transition
Initiatives.[13] Well, guess what? “Syrian Civil Defense [White Helmets] is
USAID/OTI’s largest partner in Syria.”[14] Whoops. 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.[15] 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.[16]
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.[17] 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.”[18] “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.”[18] 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.”[19] 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?[20] 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.[21] 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.[22] In fact, they answer
always to the same masters (the same who, we believe, also control the mainstream media
narrative).[23] 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. But we put our money
where our mouth was: before Trump was inaugurated, we predicted
that he would support jihadism.[24] He’d be Obama. He’d be Clinton. 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. Should you be
surprised? Not if you’ve been paying attention. After taking office, Trump hired the
Obama/Clinton foreign-policy team.[25] 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.’ ”[26] 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.”[27] 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? and 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.[28] 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.[29] 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.”[30] Upon taking power, Khomeini absorbed the
CIA’s creature, SAVAK, intact
(and renamed it SAVAMA).[31] 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].”[32]
And these American diplomats were closely monitoring PLO/Fatah’s arming and training
of Khomeini’s guerillas, because that was happening… in Lebanon.[33] After the Iranian
revolution, PLO/Fatah consolidated
Khomeini’s secret services, helped create his Iranian Revolutionary Guard
(which spawned the terrorist group Hezbollah),[33] and even, for a
while, served as
Iran’s de facto foreign ministry.[34] (You didn’t know all
this? You have lots of company. This was all on the front pages in
the period 1979-1981, but the media no longer mentions it, so
it’s no longer part of the narrative.[35]) 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 [36]—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. What happened? 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[37]). Result? Iraq was removed as a threat to Iran, and it got an Iranian-influenced,
Shia, theocratic government.[38] 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.[39] (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.[40] 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.[41] We were right. And
the next year we published
the following map.[42]
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.[43] 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.[44] 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.[45] We said
“Trump’s policies in the Middle East will be quite similar to Obama’s”;
different show, same thrust.[46] 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].”[47] 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,[48] families that kept on supporting
Nazism right through the
war,[49] protected by the US government that absorbed tens of
thousands of said Nazis into its intelligence services after the war.[50] 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. And Putin! 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); or 2)
Putin and Co. don’t get it: they cannot see that they are
setting the US power-elite’s table. Supporting the first
possibility is that Russia has long
backed the US on PLO/Fatah.[51] 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 [52]; 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.”[53] 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.)
[1] “Russia Claims Syria Chemical Attack
Was ‘Staged’ by White Helmets”; Newsweek; April 11 2018; by Shane Croucher [2] “Are Chemical Weapons Actually Useful
in a War?”; Vice; 6 September 2013; by Martin Robbins. [3]
“Yet Another Video Shows
U.S.-Funded White Helmets Assisting Public Executions in Rebel-Held Syria”; Alternet; 23 May
2017; by Ben Norton & Max Blumenthal. [4]
“While Syrian volunteers seek support,
crisis worsens at home”; New York Times; 23 September 2014; by Somini Sengupta. [5]
“The REAL Syria Civil Defence Exposes Fake ‘White Helmets’ as Terrorist-Linked
Imposters”; 21st Century Wire; 23 September 2016; by
Vanessa Beeley. [5a] “Fractures
within the Syrian opposition on Afrin: The White Helmets and the Syrian
Observatory for Human Rights”; The Region; 31 April 2018. [6] “NGO Monitor: 6 Questions on HRW's Gaza Rockets
Report”; NGO Monitor; 5 August 2009. [7]
“Syria: Armed Groups Use Caged
Hostages to Deter Attacks”; Human Rights Watch; 2 November 2015. [8]
“Are Chemical Weapons Actually
Useful in a War?”; Vice; 6 September 2013; by Martin Robbins. [9]
“Russia Claims Syria Chemical
Attack Was ‘Staged’ by White Helmets”; Newsweek; April 11 2018; by Shane Croucher [10] “While Syrian volunteers seek
support, crisis worsens at home”; New York Times; 23 September 2014; by Somini Sengupta. [11]
“Is USAID the New CIA? Agency
Secretly Built Cuban Twitter Program to Fuel Anti-Castro Protests”; Democracy Now!; 4 April 2014 [12]
“AP says U.S. secretly built
‘Cuban Twitter’ called ZunZuneo to thwart Cuba
censorship, but was it legal?”; CBS News; 3 April 2014 [13] “US secretly built ‘Cuban Twitter’ to
stir unrest”; 3 April 2014; Associated
Press; by Alberto Arce. [14]
“A man who has helped save more
than 40,000 lives in Syria was just denied entry into the US”; Business Insider; 20 April 2016; by
Natasha Bertrand. [15]
“Real Civilian Casualties vs.
The Freezer Truck Hoax”; Historical
and Investigative Research; 23 Sep 2002; by Francisco
Gil-White & Jared Israel [16]
“To see where Israel is headed,
visit Kosovo”; Historical
and Investigative Research; 8 July 2006; by Francisco
Gil-White. [17]
“Republic of Kosovo: Request for
Stand-By Arrangement—Staff Report; Press Release on the Executive Board
Discussion”; IMF Country Report No. 12/100; April 2012. “International Organizations, Global
Governance and the role of Neoliberal institutions in the promotion of
Postmodern Imperialism”; Medium; 24 December 2017; Priya Singh. [18] “How
I joined the jihadis by mistake”; BBC News;
25 February 2018. [19]
“USAID Assistant Administrator
Brock Bierman Meets with Prime Minister Haradinaj”;
USAID;
22 February 2018; Xheraldina Cernobregu;
[20]
“A man who has helped save more
than 40,000 lives in Syria was just denied entry into the US”; Business Insider; 20 April 2016; by
Natasha Bertrand [21]
“NOW YOU SEE IT... Just where
did ISIS come from?”; Historical
and Investigative Research; 23 Nov 2015; by Francisco
Gil-White. [22]
“Is Trump the boss?”; Historical
& Investigative Research; 5 April 2017; by Francisco
Gil-White [23]
“Psychological warfare,
communication research, and the media”; Historical
and Investigative Research; 17 May 2016; by Francisco
Gil-White. [24] “Will Trump be different?”; Historical
& Investigative Research; Jan 20, 2016; by Francisco
Gil-White. [25]
“Who makes foreign policy for
Trump?”; Historical
& Investigative Research; 21 May 2017; by Francisco
Gil-White. [26]
“Syria war: Trump ‘persuaded not
to pull out immediately’ ”; BBC News;
4 April 2018. [27] “The many things Trump didn’t
accomplish in the latest Syria strike”; Washington Post; 16 April 2018; by Ishaan Tharoor. “After
U.S. Strikes, Syria Returns to War as Usual”; New York Times; 15 April 2018; by Ben
Hubbard. [28]
“POLITICAL GRAMMAR: How does
psych warfare work?”; Historical
and Investigative Research; 17 May 2016; by Francisco
Gil-White. [29]
“The US and Iran: Friends of
Foes?”; Historical
and Investigative Research; 7 Sep 2016; by Francisco
Gil-White. [30]
“US had extensive contact with
Ayatollah Khomeini before Iran revolution”; The Guardian; 10 June 2016; by Saeed Kamali Dehghan in London and
David Smith in Washington. [31]
“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. [32]
“Interview: Vincent Cannistraro”; PBS Frontline; September 2001. Vincent Cannistraro was Director of NSC Intelligence from
1984 to 1987. [33] Right after the Iranian Revolution, “Palestinian
sources said that Mr. Arafat’s group had sent arms to the [Iranian]
revolutionary forces in the last four months and had trained Iranian
guerillas since the early 1970s.” 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 [34]
“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 [35]
“PLO/Fatah and Iran: The Special
Relationship”; Historical
and Investigative Research; 25 May 2010; by Francisco
Gil-White. [36]
“Us Foreign Policy In The Arab-Israeli Conflict”; Historical and Investigative Research; 17
May 2016; by Francisco Gil-White. [37]
“THE US AND IRAN: FRIENDS OR
FOES?”; Historical
and Investigative Research; 7 Sep 2016; by Francisco Gil-White. [38]
“Islamist Sharia in Iraq Made in
the USA”; Historical and Investigative
Research; 18 May 2006; by Francisco Gil-White. [39]
“NOW YOU SEE IT... Just where
did ISIS come from?”; Historical
and Investigative Research;
23 Nov 2015; by Francisco Gil-White [40]
“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 [41]
“Will the US attack Iran? An
alternative hypothesis”; Historical and
Investigative Research; 23 Feb 2006; by Francisco Gil-White. [42]
“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. [43]
“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 [44] “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 [45] “Will the US attack Iran? An
alternative hypothesis”; Historical and
Investigative Research; 23 Feb 2006; by Francisco Gil-White. [46] “Will Trump be different?”; from
TRUMP & THE MIDDLE EAST: AN HIR SERIES; Historical
& Investigative Research; Jan 20, 2016, by Francisco
Gil-White. [47]
“These Muslims are Democrats so
Why Isn’t the West Helping?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 28
March 2016; by Francisco Gil-White. [48]
“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 [49]
“The aims of the us power elite
in WWII”; Historical
and Investigative Research; 17 May 2016; by Francisco
Gil-White. [50]
“US postwar policy toward Nazi
war criminals”; Historical
and Investigative Research;
17 May 2016; by Francisco Gil-White. [51]
“US foreign policy in the
Arab-Israeli conflict”; from PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE AND POLITICAL GRAMMAR: AN
HIR SERIES; Historical
and Investigative Research; 17 May 2016; by Francisco
Gil-White. [52]
“Why do enemies of democracy
attack the Jews?”; from PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE AND POLITICAL GRAMMAR: AN HIR
SERIES; Historical
and Investigative Research; Aug 2015; by Francisco Gil-White [53]
“Iran nuclear deal: Trump pulls
US out in break with Europe allies”; BBC
NEWS; 9 May 2018. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
