DISCLOSURE: VT condemns the horrific tragedy committed by the NAZI Party against Jewish Citizens of Europe during Word War II known as the "Holocaust". VT condemns all racism, bigotry, hate speech, and violence. However, we are an open source uncensored journal and support the right of independent writers and commentors to express their voices; even if those voices are not mainstream as long as they do NOT openly call for violence. Please report any violations of comment policy to us immediately. Strong reader discretion is advised.
Were Muslim Evil Doers again at work in New York?
Is that the lesson to be learned from a May 1st “car bomb” that fizzled while parked alongside the Marriott Hotel in Manhattan’s busy Times Square?
The clues are there if only investigators will follow the facts. With reports of this latest Evil Doer dominating national news coverage, where should investigators look?
Start with the May 4th New York Times. A helpful clue appears in the last sentence of the last paragraph of an article buried on page 13 titled “Iran Angrily Defends Nuclear Program.”
There you will also find the Times’ account of a U.N. speech by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Years ago he urged: “Zionism must be erased from the pages of history.”
Or, as translated by The Times, “Israel must be wiped off the map.”
Oft described as a “Holocaust Denier,” he routinely challenges the consensus belief about its number of casualties. His persistence on that delicate points explains why the U.N. General Assembly was only one-third full during his May 3rd speech.
The same day that Muslim Evil Doing dominated our national media, our “paper of record” published only a cursory report of U.N. efforts to contain nuclear nonproliferation—the threat with which both Iran and Ahmadinejad are most closely associated:
“A compromise worked out in 1995 called for a special conference on creating a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East, but it has never been convened. Egypt is again demanding that gathering. The United States position has been that such a treaty can be worked out only after a comprehensive Middle East peace plan.”
Could the possibility of such a treaty after a 15-year delay explain the timing of this widely reported Evil Doing? Which nation is best placed—and most motivated—to scuttle a comprehensive peace plan?
Peace Plans vs. the Agent Provocateur
Let’s take a quick look at Israeli conduct since 1948. That’s when President Harry Truman, a Christian Zionist, recognized Jewish Zionism as a legitimate basis for a state.
1956: Just eight years later, Zionists played a leading role in provoking the Suez Crisis in an attempt to expand Israel’s agreed-to borders. That crisis was timed to emerge during the reelection campaign of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
1963: In June, President John F. Kennedy wrote to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to insist on inspections of Israel’s Dimona reactor. Even then, 47 years ago, a U.S. president sought to preclude a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The next day, Ben-Gurion announced his timely resignation. Five months later, following Kennedy’s assassination, President Lyndon Johnson approved more U.S. arms for Israel.
1967: In June, Zionists mounted a Six-Day land grab designed to appear defensive. That provocation ensured the region-wide hostility that remains an ongoing catalyst for conflicts and hostilities in the Middle East. Johnson covered-up the Israeli attack on a U.S. Navy ship, the USS Liberty, that killed 34 Americans and wounded 175. The admiral father of Republican Senator John McCain played a key role in the cover-up.
The same night that this long-planned war began, Johnson was being ‘serviced’ in the White House by Mathilde Krim, a former Irgun operative then married to Arthur Krim, president of United Artists and the top fundraiser for the Democratic Party—then headed by Johnson. See McCain Family Secret: The Cover-up.
2003: Fast forward 36 years and a Republican Christian Zionist president was induced to order the U.S. military to war in Iraq in response to: (a) a high-profile provocation in Manhattan, and (b) intelligence “fixed” around an agenda consistent with Zionists’ expansionist goals for Greater Israel.
When advising Democrat Truman against extending U.S. recognition to this extremist enclave, the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs described the Zionists’ “fanatical concepts” and cautioned him about their intent to seek “military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.” The consistency of Israeli behavior has since proven the correctness of that candid military assessment.
2008: Between Christmas 2008 and the January 2009 inauguration of Barack Obama, Zionists mounted a military assault on Palestinians confined in Gaza, leaving more than 1400 dead, including 400 children. That well-timed provocation rekindled region-wide outrage that undermined U.S. military efforts in the region and deepened the distrust of Americans by Muslims to whom the U.S. already appeared guilty by association.
Sum of All Fears
Does the appearance in Times Square of a Muslim Evil Doer credibly reinforce the need for the U.S. to lead a Global War on Terrorism? Or was the Fizzler a “patsy”—a pawn—deployed to freshen up a stale storyline and revive a flagging geopolitical narrative?
The botched Manhattan incident is hauntingly similar to the “Christmas Day Bomber.” That similarly botched event is widely ridiculed as “The Crotch Bomber” by those aware of the facts confirming that “terrorist” event was an Israeli operation reliant on a Muslim “patsy.”
As with the young Nigerian apprehended on Christmas Day while enroute from Amsterdam to Detroit, the Times Square Pakistani “terrorist” was, at best, inept. When he locked the car, he left his apartment key in a vehicle featuring an identification number that helped ensure his arrest within two days.
Yet to be assessed is how he was allowed to travel freely between the U.S. and western tribal regions of Pakistan where he was reportedly being “trained.”
Media reports embellished the import of multiple bags of fertilizer in his car. Those reports evoked memories of Timothy McVeigh and a fertilizer-laden truck bomb used in a 1995 incident in Oklahoma City that left 168 dead, including children attending a day care center.
Only with a close perusal of The Times report could a reader uncover the concession that the fertilizer used by this latest Evil Doer was non-explosive.
As this 30-year old Pakistani stepped away from his recently purchased car, the Rube Goldberg contraption “rigged to explode” was already smoking (i.e., fizzling), ensuring it would quickly be spotted in the most heavily trafficked area in midtown Manhattan.
Evil Doer or Pliable Asset?
Was this latest “Muslim terrorist” an “asset” as described in the sophisticated psy-ops used in unconventional warfare? Assets are people profiled in sufficient depth that they can be relied on to perform consistent with their profile when placed in a circumstance over which the perpetrators exert influence. See: How Israel Wages War in Plain Sight.
Was this operation another asset-enabled provocation designed to manipulate the thoughts and emotions of Americans? Could this latest incident be an example of how well-timed psy-ops are deployed to shape policy-making in the U.S. and the U.N.?
Is this incident a U.S. counterpart to how Gaza is “rigged to explode” based on a six-decade siege, the routine use of disproportionate force and a seething bitterness periodically rekindled by announcements of more settlements on disputed land?
Is the American mindset being “rigged to explode” against Muslim Evil Doers? Is that the psy-ops purpose of serial incidents marketed by mainstream media with a common theme of “Islamo” fascism?
In an era of Information Age warfare, national security requires an ability to distinguish predator from prey. And genuine victims from those adept at creating consensus beliefs. It was consensus beliefs in phony intelligence that induced us to war in Iraq in response to the provocation of 911.
Probabilistic Media Reporting
For game theory war planners, the outcomes of their operations are never 100% certain. By controlling key variables, however, desired results become likely and even mathematically foreseeable. In national security parlance, the results of game theory-modeled operations are “probabilistic.” See: How Israel Wages Game Theory Warfare.
What was the likelihood of Bill Clinton’s reaction to sexual overtures from White House intern Monica Lewinsky at a time-critical juncture in the lead-up to the war on terrorism? What was the probability of Lyndon Johnson’s response to the wiles of Mathilde Krim in the lead-up to the 1967 war?
As with the foreseeable reaction to well-timed personal encounters, so too the probabilistic outcome of reactions to well-timed provocations. The strategic motivation behind terrorist events may be difficult to discern. For game theory war planners, the goal is typically the anticipated reaction. And the reaction to that reaction….
Thus the essential narrative-advancing role of media reports that focus on the incident without a context for the public to appraise its potential game theory purpose.
What was the likely response of a Christian Zionist commander-in-chief when provoked by a mass murder on U.S. soil? How difficult was it to profile the personality of G.W. Bush?
Was the probable response enhanced when key decision-making variables were controlled with phony intelligence “fixed” around a pre-determined goal?
Other than like-minded fanatics with a genius for game theory math, who could orchestrate such an operation in plain sight?
What’s the probability that this latest “terrorist event” in Manhattan would have an impact on U.N. treaty negotiations in Manhattan? Or that this incident could affect Zionist goals?
What was the likelihood that those reporting the news (with an undisclosed bias) would obscure U.N. negotiations on nuclear nonproliferation while highlighting this “terrorist” event?
Did the timing of this incident have anything to do with the fact that the Iranian leader, Holocaust Denier and Muslim Evil Doer was scheduled to speak in Manhattan?
For a nation reliant on informed choice to defend its interest, what could possibly be more perilous to our ability to protect ourselves from all enemies, both foreign and domestic?
What impressions did this reporting—still ongoing—create in the minds of Americans?
Is this another example of how consensus beliefs are created to advance a narrative?
Is the intent to reinforce the threat of a nuclear Iran? Is that our national media downplayed the potential of a Middle East free of the threat of nuclear weapons?
Game Theory and the Restoration of National Security
Only after the Fizzler operation did a likely motivation for its timing come into focus. On May 5th, four days after the incident, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council voiced support for making the entire Middle East a nuclear-free zone.
That would mean scrapping nuclear weapons in the hands of Zionists—or what the Joint Chiefs called Jewish “fanatics” who seek to dominate the Muslim-dominant Middle East.
When your numbers are few but your ambitions vast (i.e., fanatical), what choice do you have but to induce another nation to wage your wars? How else could Zionists proceed but by befriending the nation they intended to betray?
How could they defraud us without first befriending us? What better force-multiplier for Zionists to pursue their ambitious goals than to nurture at the close of WWII a “special relationship” with a nuclear-armed superpower?
How better to succeed from the shadows than with serial operations carried out by agent provocateurs skilled in the game theory modeling of anticipated reactions?
As for Iran and its widely reported ambitions to develop nuclear weapons, media accounts routinely omit a key component in this professed peril: Iran has no capacity to project force.
Nuclear terrorism, however, is consistent with game theory provocations. Will we see such operations? Will we see a nuclear “event” in the U.S.?
Will nuclear devices be deployed by a state whose expansionist goals can only succeed by sustaining a consensus narrative: The Clash of Civilizations?
Just days before this incident, the U.S. extended sanctions against Syria, largely in reliance on Israeli intelligence charging that Damascus was shipping Scud missiles to Hezbollah.
A narrative has already been launched to connect Iran-supported Hezbollah to an “incident” in the U.S.
Two weeks after Israel invaded Lebanon to pursue Hezbollah in July 2006, Israeli operative Jerome Corsi launched at Ground Zero in Manhattan a book titled Minutemen. Its theme: due to our failed immigration policies, Hezbollah terrorists are sneaking across the Mexican border and plotting another 911.
Did Zionists Walk into A Trap?
How can those targeted by such duplicity make the perpetrators transparent in real time? Did the U.S. lull this serial agent provocateur into staging a transparent operation?
Did the Fizzler incident help make apparent a network of psy-ops support, including the role of undisclosed bias in mainstream media? We don’t know.
What we know is this: as with the Crotch Bomber, our national media assessed and reported the incident consistent with The Clash storyline. Reports routinely referred to the Christmas Day Bomber as proof of an ongoing threat from fanatical Muslims.
We also know this: the media profile given this provocation obscured progress in a long-delayed international effort meant to contain the threat of nuclear terrorism. To sustain the consensus narrative requires plausible events that sustain a fearful mindset.
Right on cue, a reliable political asset, Vice President Joe “I am a Zionist” Biden, charged in a May 6th keynote speech to the European Parliament in Brussels that Iran (i.e., not Israel) could provoke a “nuclear arms race” in the Middle East.
Emboldened by support from those in positions of influence, Tel Aviv defended its “opaque” nuclear weapons policy that same day, citing the policy’s “strategic advantage.” Israel also reconfirmed its refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty until a comprehensive Arab-Israel peace plan is in place.
With peace negotiations downgraded to “proximity talks,” Israeli officials resumed their taunts by insisting on a Palestinian “incitement index” demanding that Palestinians stop anti-Israel incitement and promote education toward peace.
Such Israeli conduct only further underscores their confidence that no one will hold them accountable, especially the U.S.
Psy-ops in the Information Age
This “Pakistani terrorism” appears tailor-made (and timed) to gain traction for the consensus belief in an “Islamo” fascist narrative. That belief may yet attain critical mass.
Yet transparency is on the rise along with a steadily widening grasp of how agent provocateur operations and game theory warfare manipulate the public mindset.
Successful psy-ops are measured not by an incident but by how thinking shifts in response.
As during the Kennedy era, the Middle East presents the greatest threat of nuclear proliferation. Since the Truman era, Zionist goals have dominated politics in the Middle East and remain at the center of the nuclear nonproliferation challenge.
Should Barack Obama seek to secure Israel’s nuclear arsenal, what will be his fate?
Should Zionist fanatics conclude that their agenda for regional dominance is at risk, will they stage a nuclear Masada?
Could such an event be orchestrated to make it appear the work of Muslim Evil Doers?
If that possibility has not been factored into our national security equation, those charged with protecting the U.S. badly misread the mindset of the fanatic.
With transparency emerging at a steadily increasing pace, accountability now looms on the geopolitical horizon. What are those complicit to do? What are their alternatives?
The opposition to peace traces its roots not to Pakistan or Iran. Nor will its source be found in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt or other Muslim nations in a region that Zionists mean to dominate.
The opponents of peace are those Albert Einstein and 27 prominent Jews described in a December 1948 letter to The New York Times as “this latest manifestation of fascism.”
The Last Birthday?
May 14th marks the 62nd anniversary of Harry Truman’s fateful two-sentence statement extending to this extremist enclave U.S. recognition as a legitimate state.
The goals of Zionist fanatics remain unchanged. The only change is this: an informed public is beginning to grasp the murderous measures to which Israel and its supporters will resort to attain those goals.
We now have a lengthy history to prove it. Transparency will be the death knell of Zionism. The only question is this: at what additional cost in human suffering?
The Mossad, Israel’s intelligence and foreign operations directorate, specializes in waging war “by way of deception.” Zionist game theory modeling succeeds in plain sight through serial provocations that set in motion cascades of foreseeable reactions.
A former Mossad case officer revealed the simple secret of Israel’s success at catalyzing and sustaining serial conflicts: “Once the orchestra starts to play, we just hum along.”
Thus the tactical role of duplicity in fostering environments of fear, distrust and hatred. Thus the strategic need to sustain The Clash of Civilizations as a plausible narrative.
As those most clearly responsible for enabling this treachery, we Americans must concede our central role. That role obliges us to ensure a rapid closure to this anguished chapter in human history.
Americans must lead an initiative to withdraw recognition, impose a democratic one-state solution and transform Jerusalem into an international city protected under U.N. auspices.
Most critically, Israel’s nuclear arsenal must be secured consistent with decades of experience confirming that Zionists pose the world’s greatest threat to nuclear proliferation.
A Vietnam veteran, Jeff Gates is a widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide. He served for seven years as counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance.
He is widely published in the trade, popular and academic press. His latest book is Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War.
His previous books include Democracy at Risk: Rescuing Main Street From Wall Street and The Ownership Solution: Toward a Shared Capitalism for the 21st Century. Topical commentaries appear on the Criminal State website.