A Bird’s Eye View of Contrived Terror–Part I. A Preview

 “A global economic system erected on inhuman and predatory values, where a few possess more wealth than the billions of hungry put together, will end, but the end will be painful and bloody.”–Prof. Mujahid Kamran, 2011

Summary: This first posting (i) introduces a six-part essay on fake terror, (ii) provides the rationale for the holistic orientation of this essay, and (iii) previews forthcoming Parts II-VI.

by Prof. Moti Nissani

Current postings of “A Bird’s Eye View of Contrived Terror”:
II. Backdrop of Terror
III. The Gladio Conspiracy
IV. 19 Telltale Signs of Fake Terror
V. History: Read it and Learn
VI.  Give me Logic or Give me Terror
Hassan al Sabbah, a brilliant Iranian polymath and tactician, founded the Nizari Ismai’li state, a state that flourished from 1090 to 1256 AD in Iran and Syria. This small state relied on a cadre of fearless professional assassins to protect itself from conquests, and to protect co-religionists living elsewhere from massacres. Typically, the state issued a tangible warning (e.g., placing a dagger on a target’s bed) to rulers contemplating such acts of aggression. When a ruler failed to heed the warning, he was killed. This strategy of asymmetrical warfare was astoundingly effective, minimizing bloodshed and bringing to heel such powerful figures as the Sultan Salah A’din.
 
Aims and Scope of this Six-Part Essay
Dissident discourses, for the most part, analyze single incidents, or a group of incidents, in the political, economic, military, or environmental spheres. Hourly, the banking Syndicate controlling the western world and its colonies goes on committing unimaginable robberies, murders, and assaults on civil liberties and the biosphere. And so dissident writers (myself included, e.g., see here and here) react in shocked surprise, dissect each and every outrage, often furnishing near-conclusive evidence of the Syndicate’s heartlessness and culpability. Such indictments reinforce the worldview that western governments and their colonies are nothing more than puppets of a criminal syndicate (bankers for short), counteract cradle-to-grave indoctrination, and help recruit needed converts to the view that we live in an upside-down world.
Such exposures must be complemented by a broader view. The present six-part-essay takes such a broader view of the political landscape, thereby helping:

• Conclusively show that 21st century terror is traceable, for the most part, to the Syndicate (acting in part through its principal outposts in Washington DC, London, and Jerusalem),
• Convince us that we live in an upside-down world,
• Reverse our expectations—we will be shocked and surprised if the Syndicate, just once, serves the interests of humanity as a whole—not when it doesn’t.
• Divert our precious resources from the Syndicate’s daily crimes to the question and actions whose importance supersedes all others: How can we save humanity and remove this Syndicate from power?

Preview of Forthcoming Essays
II. Before proving the ubiquity of state-sponsored terror, we need to take a brief look at the matrix supporting such terror. The second part of this 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).
Jim Kirwan’s “Citadel Of Broken Dreams” is accompanied by this caption: “Humanity has chosen to build its Citadel of Dreams upon the backs of those less fortunate. The weight of this impossible fantasy has turned the bulk of humanity into petrified stone, as symbolized [in the painting]. The only thing left for us, is to listen to the dragon-fire of private conscience, so that we can rise again and throw off this tyrannical prison.”III. The third part of the Gladio-USA six-part essay recalls the horrors the Syndicate visited on Europe in the 1960s through the 1980s. These horrors, now conveniently subsumed under the Gladio rubric, involved killing hundreds of civilians (“women, children, unknown people far from any political game”), the overthrow of democratically-elected governments, and assassinations of heads of state and other high-profile friends of the people. Gladio’s shock and awe strategy, its reliance on propaganda, bribes, blackmail, fascists, and agents provocateurs, sought “to discredit left-wing groups and politicians,” confuse and enfeeble the people, and cause mayhem. It thereby induced people to look to the very entity that terrorized them so—the state—for their security. The Gladio Conspiracy—among countless other proven conspiracies throughout the ages—makes a mockery of conspiracy scoffers, once again corroborating Mark Twain’s view that fools make up “a big enough majority in any town.” Gladio also proves that Western governments have long ago fallen under the spell of diabolical Machiavellians. The key take-home lesson from this part is this: All things being equal, the known involvement of Western governments in Gladio suggests that it is these governments (and not fanatic Muslims or other extremists) that are behind the hyped wave of 21st century terror.

IV. Everyone agrees that The old Gladio Conspiracy had been a Syndicate-sponsored terror campaign falsely attributed to left-wing terrorists. This, in turn, raises the possibility that contemporary terror is likewise Syndicate-sponsored, falsely attributed to Muslim and other radicals. To further support this likelihood, the fourth part of our six-part essay outlines 19 general characteristics of contemporary terror. For the sake of brevity, the discussion is restricted to the Syndicate’s most powerful handmaiden–the American government, to the terror operations of this handmaiden in just one country–the USA, and it illustrates each characteristic with just one act of domestic terror–the April 2013 Boston Marathon Explosions. Taken together, these 19 characteristics (i) provide a theoretical framework of fake terror, (ii) facilitate identification of past and future incidents of fake terror, (iii) throw light on such incidents, (iv) afford near-conclusive proof for the ubiquity of government-sponsored terror in the USA, and, as a side benefit, (v) compellingly confirm the suspicion that the Boston explosions were orchestrated by the Syndicate (working primarily through its Washington DC outpost).
V. The fifth posting continues to compare the plausibility of two alternative views of the origins of contemporary terror.  The official view ascribes all terror incidents to radical, half-crazed, militants while the dissident view traces most terror incidents to the American government and its masters, the international bankers (=the Syndicate).  Two historical patterns throw additional light on this controversy:  1. To convince reluctant Americans to go to war, the bankers typically resort to false-flag operations (government conspiracies involving deliberate murders of dozens, hundreds, or thousands of Americans), lies, and fabrications.  2.  A survey of hundreds of influential American dissidents over the last 150 years or so points to an incontrovertible generalization: The government maligned, harassed, incarcerated, and executed almost all such dissidents.  Although these two patterns of mass murder and deceit cannot by themselves decide between the two alternatives views, they are far more congruent with the dissident view.
 
VI. The sixth and final posting of “A Bird’s Eye View of Contrived Terror” furnishes additional grounds for believing that most 21^st century incidents of terror in the USA have been acts of state.  Two views on the origins of terror compete for our attention.  The official view traces terror to marginal movements and individuals, whereas the dissident view traces terror to the men in the shadows (bankers and their subordinates in the corporate, military, and intelligence worlds).  An overview of the preceding five essays is followed by the contention that although conclusive proof for the dissident view had already been articulated in this series, it is not a waste of time to provide two additional proofs.  The international bankers and their agents in places like Washington DC, London, Ottawa, Mexico City, Bogotá, or Paris, are manifestly capable of any conspiratorial crime whatsoever; hence, we can summarily dismiss the naïve belief that they would not inflict terror on their own people: Their culpability or innocence cannot be dismissed a priori but must be decided on the basis of the available evidence.  The first reason for believing that the men in the shadows are behind most 21^st century terror involves the question: Who benefits?  Terror exerted an enormous toll from its alleged perpetrators and their collaborators.  Rulers accused of terrorism, as well as their relatives and associates, have been deposed, impoverished, incarcerated, tortured, or lynched.  Their countries have been demonized, starved into submission, conquered, colonized, looted, impoverished, handed over to psychopaths and sycophants, fragmented, torn apart by a vicious divide-and-rule strategy, and subjected to severe, long-lasting, environmental degradation.  For their part, the alleged architects and perpetrators of terror have endured shattered dreams, persecution, incarceration, torture, and death.  The argument that the terrorists were mainly interested in wreaking havoc on the American economy and the dollar is mistaken, although the USA and the dollar are indeed weaker in late 2013 than they were in 2001.  In fact, the possible collapse does not merely involve a vastly disproportionate response to the threat of terror, but is not caused by it at all.  Thus, those accused of terror have gained less than nothing from their purported crimes.  The men in the shadows, by contrast, have made a killing.  To begin with, the tacit premise of the entire war on terror—that the bankers react so violently to it because they care about us—is laughable.  These men are vastly richer now; they have been making trillions selling death machines, and they have gained access to vast oil and gas fields and other resources.  They have been able to prolong the life of their chief fiat currency (the American dollar) and to divert public attention from their heinous crimes.  They have sown their beloved seeds of chaos, discord, and misery the world over.  They used the war terror to justify their pre-2001 scheme of economic and military conquest of the entire planet.  As a result of 21st century terror, the bankers are closer than ever to their goals of merging Western countries into one police state, subduing Russia and China, and destroying the biosphere.  They have used this war to justify the ongoing stepwise conversion of American plutocracy into a full-fledged Brave New World.  For the rulers of the state of Israel, in particular, the war on terror has been a dream come true.  The second reason for believing that the men in the shadows are behind contemporary terror is that the alleged terrorist strategy of killing innocent bystanders, American and foreign, is not only morally repulsive but also half-witted.  It is inconceivable that “terrorists” would resort to it for decades, miserably shooting themselves in the foot, while a highly effective and far less painful and costly strategy is on hand.  To bring the bankers and their puppets to their knees, a real terrorist would have copied the bankers’ own astoundingly successful strategy of bullying or killing powerful opponents.  Likewise, a real terrorist, especially if she happened to be a Muslim, would have looked no farther than her backyard and apply a conceptually similar ancient variation:  The brilliant intimidation/decapitation strategy of Hassan Al Sabbah and his successors.  This essay then goes on to point out the irrelevance of the Revolutionary’s Dilemma (the inhibition against killing built into most people, even when confronted with psychopathic killers) to this second argument.  The essay concludes with a brief survey of revolutionary strategies, arguing that there is one, and only one–sordid but inescapable–strategy that could realize humanity’s dreams for a free, just, peaceful, and sustainable world.
Please Go to Part II: Backdrop of Terror

Moti Nissani

Dr. Moti Nissani is a jack of most academic trades and professor emeritus, Wayne State University.