“It is perfectly possible for a man to be out of prison and yet not free–to be under no physical constraint and yet to be a psychological captive, compelled to think, feel and act as the representatives of the national State, or of some private interest within the nation, want him to think, feel, and act. . . . The victim of mind-manipulation does not know that he is a victim. To him, the walls of his prison are invisible, and he believes himself to be free.”—Aldous Huxley, 1958
Summary: Before proving the ubiquity of state-sponsored terror, we need to take a brief look at the matrix supporting such terror. This second posting of a six-part essay shows that this matrix (i) leads us to the false belief that the USA was once free, peaceful, just, and sustainable; (ii) viciously undermines language (and hence, our ability to think clearly); (iii) limits our access to accurate information; (iv) compels us to needlessly hedge our public discourse; shifts our attention from the handful of families who control the world (=the Syndicate or international bankers) to the dual fictions of (v) front men as powerful political figures (e.g., president of the USA, chairman of the Federal Reserve) and (vi) countries as sovereign actors (e.g., the USA, France).
Current postings of “A Bird’s Eye View of Contrived Terror”:
Six Key Ingredients of the Matrix of Terror
The contemporary war on terror in America (=the Gladio-USA Conspiracy) is just one element within a larger framework of parasitism, treachery, and indoctrination. Before moving on to Gladio-Europe and Gladio-USA, we must become fully cognizant of at least six key attributes of this larger framework.
1. The USA has Never been Free, Just, Peaceful, or Sustainable
There is a common misconception in dissident circles about America’s past. This misconception, in turn, has profound implications. If this is indeed a misconception, then our goal should not be the restoration of the old dysfunctional union, but the breaking up of that union into thousands of small direct democracies or, at the very least, forming a more perfect union, of a type that never existed before in American history.
Let me give you just three examples of America’s perennial malfeasance:
A. To my knowledge, the greatest and most thorough book ever to appear on media bias in the United States (Upton Sinclair’s The Brass Check–a book that is hardly ever mentioned by media scholars whose work is a mere update of that older book) was self-published in 1919. Suppression of the truth, prostitution, and bias were as dire then as they are today.
Here are just a few typical excerpts:
“Our newspapers do not represent public interests, but private interests; they do not represent humanity, but property; they value a man, not because he is great, or good, or wise, or useful, but because he is wealthy, or of service to vested wealth.
“I was determined to get something done about the Condemned Meat Industry. I was determined to get something done about the atrocious conditions under which men, women and children were working the Chicago stockyards. In my efforts to get something done, I was like an animal in a cage. The bars of this cage were newspapers, which stood between me and the public; and inside the cage I roamed up and down, testing one bar after another, and finding them impossible to break.”
Sinclair also quotes from a speech of John Swinton, editor of a major New York newspaper of that era. The occasion is a toast for an independent press. The audience: fellow editors:
“The business of the New York journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his race and his country for his daily bread. You know this and I know it, and what folly is this to be toasting an “Independent Press.” We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping-jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”
B. I mention later on in this terror series one contemporary example among thousands of the treason of the U.S. senate (contravening the Constitution by trying to regulate gun powder). In that case, I borrowed the phrase “treason of the Senate” from the title of David Graham Phillips’ great 1906 manifesto with that title. Here is one quote:
“The treason of the Senate! Treason is a strong word, but not too strong, rather too weak, to characterize the situation in which the Senate is the eager, resourceful, indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to the American people as any invading army could be, and vastly more dangerous; interests that manipulate the prosperity produced by all, so that it heaps up riches for the few; interests whose growth and power can only mean the degradation of the people, of the educated into sycophants, of the masses toward serfdom.”
The interests Phillips refers to are, for the most part, the ubiquitous Rockefellers and their underlings. We may note in passing that you can’t anger the Rockefellers now (e.g., as Martin Luther King or Aaron Russo found out), just as you couldn’t anger them a century ago: Phillips was assassinated in 1911, at age 43.
C. A 1900 quote from America’s greatest novelist:
“We do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.”
Elsewhere Mark Twain describes the blood-curdling Moro Massacre. We may note in passing that this masterpiece of ironic writing, which rivals Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” is rarely taught in our schools and universities. Such omissions explain in part common misconceptions about America’s real past.
These are not isolated examples. Yes, America of the 1910s or 1970s was a better place than America in the 2010s, but only marginally so. If you need more examples to convince yourself, read Dr. Paul Atwood’s real history of the USA (War and Empire, 2010)—and hang down your head and cry.
2. Syndicate-Sponsored Linguistic Terrorism
As Orwell noted, totalitarian governments attack language itself, deliberately making us think in their terms, not ours. Such attacks are critically important to those wishing to liberate themselves from contemporary shibboleths like the “war on terror” and who possess the courage, decency, commitment to holistic thinking, open-mindedness, and rare intellectual ability to do so. We must always be aware of such attacks and protect ourselves, whenever possible, by using our own terms, not the Syndicate’s.
It is no accident that just when the USA became the most aggressive and militant nation on earth, the “War Department” became “the Defense Department.” It is no accident that some of the greatest monetary thefts in world history are referred to as a “bail out” and “quantitative easing,” and that another future gigantic theft will be called “bail-in.” It is no accident that a deliberate enslavement of countries like Greece in 2013 is called a “rescue operation.”
Or, to give another example, the designation “Department of Homeland Security” clearly follows Nazi and Stalinist examples, with their abuse of the world “homeland” and their talk about “security,” instead of stating that Department’s obvious goal—undermining the Constitution and setting the groundwork for our enslavement and indigence.
The whole specter of Orwellian double speak is truly nauseating. A clever psychologist comes up with such linguistic distortions as “green shoots,” “sequestering,” “tapering,” or “prism” (I shall never forgive the bankers and their psychologists for smirching this last beautiful word) and, with enough repetitions, the vast majority mindlessly recites these distortions, apparently believing that they signify something other than window dressing or attempts to control our thought processes. Godzilla runs over an infant, and calls it “war.” Godzilla kills half a million toddlers in one country, labeling these murders “liberation,” pats himself on the back, and is celebrated by the majority of historians and journalists. The bankers—demonstrably the most powerful enemies of direct democracy the world has ever seen—while protecting their fiat currency monopoly, encircling Russia and China, making money selling death-killing machines, inundating the world with drugs, and expropriating other people’s petroleum—justify their actions via such linguistic perversions as “weapon of mass destruction” and “democracy.” We cannot entirely shed off such filth, but we must try.
So in this six-part essay I shall avoid the Syndicate’s euphemisms whenever I can. When such terms must be used for the sake of clarity and readability, I shall retain, for instance, the same DHS acronym, but, when spelling it out, will talk about the Department of Home Surveillance. I shall talk about the War (not Defense) Department and the Injustice (not justice) Department. The CIA, for now, is best called the Central Institute of Assassination and the FBI the Federal Bureau of Intimdiations. Together, these “intelligence” organizations and their dozens of sisters will be referred to as government death squads.
In the same vein, “Operation Gladio” is a deceptive epithet for government-sponsored murder of 1000s of innocent civilians, framing innocent people for such murders, toppling governments, murdering leaders, and sowing anxiety, chaos, and discord in an entire continent. Conspiracy is not strong enough for such cloven-footed actions, but it will have to do. So here too I’ll try to match language to reality by talking about “the Gladio Conspiracy.”
These are just preliminary linguistic stabs. I leave the task of creating a complete “People’s Catalog of Public Terms” to someone else.
3. In a World Ruled by a Secretive Cabal, Truth Seekers Must at Times Stand Behind Reasonable Conjectures
It is much easier, in this bankers’ world of ours, to discover nuggets of gold hundreds of feet beneath the surface of a cesspool, than to uncover political truths. In a world where disinformation, manipulation, and co-option rule, even dedicated seekers of truth are often led astray. Moreover, when truth seekers wish to move from one incident or another to an integrative view of all such incidents, the number of errors multiplies. To further aggravate matters, truth seekers are vastly outnumbered, outgunned, and outspent by a vast array of bought-and-paid-for officials, academics, and journalists. So, any attempt to understand the matrix contains, by its very nature, inaccuracies.
Hence, truth seekers must concede in advance the existence of inevitable errors in their public discourses and must be ever ready to modify their views. At the same time, they ought to realize that these errors do not as a rule discredit the writings of which they are a part. In almost all cases, you might be mistaken about a few details, but absolutely on the mark in your general conclusions. For instance, if only 50% of the information in the present six-part series is accurate, the main inferences—that the War on Terror is masterminded and carried out by the Syndicate itself (of which the USA government is one important branch) and that this “war” obeys its own diabolical logic—still stand.
4. Calling a Spade a Spade
With a few notable exceptions, most independent writers are reluctant to openly express their views. They might, for instance, marshal evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, but demur from explicitly committing themselves to that standpoint.
In part, this reluctance might be traced to an understandable fear of the adverse personal costs of stridency. In part, it might be traced to discomfort about that dreaded hobgoblin of being labeled a conspiracy theorist.
But the most important reason for this reluctance, I suspect, is a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific proof. When Charles Darwin falsely implied that he (and not Wallace) discovered the theory of natural selection, the probability of this theory being correct was about 90%, perhaps, and even today it only hovers around 95%. When Watson and Crick disclosed their (partially stolen) DNA model, the chances that this model was correct were probably 95%. When Banting gingerly appropriated insulin from its true discoverer (Best), he too had something like a 95% chance of being correct. In fact, such uncertainty is the norm in science: By convention, a statement about the natural world is considered true if it has at least a 95% probability of being true. We can never be certain about anything in this world: Every respectable belief is either a moral conviction, a logical inference from an axiomatic framework, or a probability statement.
The same rule ought to apply to history and politics. Yes, we must always bear our fallibility and proneness to errors in mind. At the same time, we ought to take for granted statements whose probability of being true exceeds 95%.
For revolutionaries, in particular, this is an important point, for you can’t hedge your way to overthrowing the system. So, in this six-part essay and elsewhere, I shall attempt to follow the outspoken examples of contemporary historians who dare call a spade a spade (e.g., Michael Parenti, Gordon Duff).
5. Puppets ≠ Puppeteers
We must likewise train ourselves to bypass the fictional narrative of endowing presidents, legislators, judges, or titular heads of the (miscalled) Federal Reserve or (miscalled) World Bank any power, for all these jefes are mere cutters of wood and carriers of water for the Syndicate. Even the notorious Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, and such, are mere instruments of the real Controllers (Huxley’s term). Instead, when talking about power wielders, I shall often skip the puppets and talk about the Syndicate or bankers (=the Banking-Militarist Complex, the misnamed Military-Industrial Complex, the Controllers, the shadow government, the Cabal, the International Bankers, or the Rothschilds and Rockefellers), for it is in this handful of people, as far as we can divine, that real power resides.
Let me note in passing that for me, the near-universal tendency of treating puppets as power-wielders is nothing short of amazing. The bankers nominate their lackeys to head the (miscalled) Bank for International Settlements or the (miscalled) World Bank, and they pre-select lesser lackeys to the position of president of the USA, prime Minister of the UK, speaker of the house, Supreme Court judge, or commissioner to investigate contradictions in the official 9/11 fairytale. The actions of these doormats clearly expose their subservience. Moreover, history clearly shows that disobedience leads to sacking and disgrace if the doormats are lucky, and premature loss of life if they are not. And yet almost everyone, honest dissidents included, is talking as if servants like Greenspan, Bernanke, Lagarde, or Obama are sovereign or even influential actors.
I explore elsewhere (and also in part VI) the profound strategic implications of shifting our focus from the puppets to the puppeteers . If mercenaries are invading your republic, your most logical target is their financial sponsor. Once you effectively shine the light on, impoverish, arrest, intimidate, or assassinate this sponsor, the looting of your country will cease. Likewise, reformers and revolutionaries must shift their attention from the likes of Monsanto, British Petroleum, President of the United States, Senior Senator from Arizona, Governor of Wisconsin, to the handful of their financial sponsors and controllers.
6. The Fiction of Sovereign Nations
Another fictional backdrop of the Gladio-USA Conspiracy is the fiction of sovereign nations, i.e., the belief that the likes of the American, British, Australian, Canadian, French, German, Colombian, Chilean, Japanese, or Thai, governments are autonomous and serve the interests of their own people. Germany, Japan, Colombia, or Chile are mere protectorates—at the very least until foreign-controlled central bankers and imperial garrisons are uprooted from their soil. Their supposed master (the USA) is a colony too—of the bankers. One proof of this is the otherwise inexplicable convergence in the policies of all these countries. This convergence is perhaps most striking in the case of the Anglsophere and, especially, in the case of the USA and UK. Thus, you have a terror operation in the USA, you often have, shortly thereafter, a terror operation in the UK. You engage in the most massive fraud in the history of the planet in one, you follow suit in the other.
After these lines were written, I came across this example of convergence:
“What do New York City and London have in common? Both are eliminating their public libraries against the will of the public and replacing them with luxury housing, using secretive, deceptive tactics. . . . It is almost as if the authors of the London and NYC articles copied each other and substituted different libraries, one from London, the other from NYC.“
Some people trace this convergence to British subservience to America. Others trace it to America’s subservience to its old colonial mistress. Both views are mistaken. The parallelism is traceable, rather, to the fact that both governments serve the same master.
We may note in passing that, if this analysis is correct, those writers who dread the arrival of one-world government sadly fail to realize that it already is a reality in the West and its 100+ colonies.
It will be too confusing to bypass altogether the fiction of independent nation states in the Anglosphere, the West, and their colonies, so here I will conform at times to this fiction, sometimes talking about the USA or Israel as if they were sovereign nations. At other times, I shall minimize the use of such misleading fictions as the USA, UK, or Japan and directly shine the light on the master puppeteers themselves.
Go to Part I Preview); Go to Part III (the Gladio Conspiracy); Go to Part IV: 19 Telltale Signs of Fake Terror
Dr. Moti Nissani is a jack of most academic trades and professor emeritus, Wayne State University.