In for a Penny, in for a Pound?
Examining the possibility of a major false flag as public perceptions about Jews and Israel undergo a radical shift
In the lead-up to this year’s Super Bowl–which, of course, was held this past Sunday without incident–a number of websites and videos (here, here, and here, for instance) speculated on the possibility of a false flag attack, possibly nuclear, occurring at the event.
This of course is not new. Similar speculations were posited leading up to previous Super Bowls–in 2014, 2013, and probably earlier years as well.
Though the predictions didn’t prove true this year either (and most of those who made them, I would guess, are glad they didn’t), there is nonetheless cause for concern, and the idea that Israel might do something totally insane, like attempting to pull off a nuclear false flag attack, is by no means an absurd or irrational fear.
Israel and its supporters in Western countries have enormous amounts of capital invested in perpetuating certain beliefs long held by the public–and when acceptance of these beliefs erodes or begins to erode, as we see happening now, and as more and more people discard them as they begin sorting through lingering questions as to why certain things are the way they are, an unsettling sense that the house is collapsing is likely going to set in for Zionists.
For Israel and its Jewish supporters in Western countries this can, and will, eventually lead to feelings of desperation. Losing one’s long-held grip on the world is not a comforting thought. It’s not a loss some people are able to take lying down, and as Israel sinks further and further into the status of world pariah–and as perceptions of Jews continue to change, in part as a result of that–the odds that somebody in power is going to make a decision to do something insanely stupid go sharply up.
There is an old saying: “in for a penny, in for a pound.” It means a person who undertakes an enterprise is intent upon completing it–no matter what the cost. A philosophy like that held by someone with a growing sense of desperation makes for a rather dangerous person, one you’d want to avoid if at all possible.
Getting the public to retain certain beliefs is vital, and astute observers will have long been aware that prodigious amounts of Jewish time and effort seem to be poured into the endeavor of shaping public perceptions. Not surprising, then, that the Hebrew language gives us the word “hasbara.”
Certainly a number of myths go into perpetuating the current status-quo, myths such as the conviction that the United States works to spread freedom and democracy in the world, or that US leaders act in the interest of the majority of Americans. These are myths that are coming unraveled now at a rather fast-paced clip, yet at the same time, continued widespread acceptance of them is not critical to maintaining Zionist suzerainty over the political systems of the US or other Western governments.
There are, however, four beliefs, in the main, which do rank as imperative, and which Zionist Jews must labor diligently to sustain and propagate–four beliefs whose endurance is requisite, and which must continue to be accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of the population, failing which the whole house of cards is in danger of collapsing.
The beliefs are that: a) Muslim terrorists carried out 9/11; b) six million Jews died in the holocaust; c) Jews are patriotic and loyal to the countries in which they live; and d) pro-Israel lobbies in Western countries are no more powerful or influential than other lobbies.
These four principles have shaped popular perceptions of Jews to an astounding degree, and in the case of the holocaust have been held as sacrosanct. Should one or more of them be set aside or eschewed by a large majority of the public, Jews could be facing a crisis of unprecedented proportions.
It is perhaps for this reason that French comedian Dieudonné has triggered such a visceral reaction among Jews, not only in France but in the US as well. Last year the Washington Post published what could politely be classified as a hit piece in which the comedian was rather effusively reviled.
“I am not an anti-Semite,” French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala says with a devilish grin near the start of his hit show at this city’s Théâtre de la Main d’Or.Then come the Jew jokes.
Normally the mainstream media’s response to “anti-Semites” is to ignore them, but Dieudonné’s following has of course become so large he can no longer be ignored–as the video below shows. Note, close to the beginning, the size of the audience as the camera pans out over the crowd:
The Post article, published well before the Charlie Hebdo attacks, mentions that French Jewish leaders are “decrying the worst climate of anti-Semitism in decades,” and it goes on to describe Dieudonné’s growing popularity as “a sign of the times.”
Indeed, many people now are questioning all sorts of aspects about the holocaust, including where the six million figure came from. Recently blogger Greg Bacon posted a link to the Library of Congress and its collection of digitized newspaper articles dating back to the nineteenth century. Bacon typed the words “6,000,000 Jews” into the site’s search function, and turned up 138 results dating from the mid 1800s up to the early 1920s.
Bacon’s post also includes–or did include–a video showing a 3-D tour of Auschwitz, particularly an area of the camp where Jews were said to have been herded, en masse, in groups of up to 2000 at a time, into an underground room, gassed, and subsequently taken to a second room to be burned in crematory ovens. Indeed, there were some ovens, it seems–a total of 15, each designed to hold one body at any given time. Bacon put up the post on January 28. The video has since been removed from YouTube.
But it isn’t only the holocaust narrative that is being widely questioned. The official account of what took place on 9/11 is also taking a battering. Last year the website Rethink911 published the results of a poll showing that 38 percent of Americans have “some doubts” about the official story. Ten percent do not believe it at all, while 12 percent are “unsure” about it.
But here’s the real kicker: Nearly half of those polled were unaware of the collapse of a third building. When informed about it, and actually shown video footage of the collapse of Building 7, opinions changed dramatically. Forty six percent were “sure or suspect” the collapse was caused by controlled demolition. This compares with 28 percent who were “sure or suspect” it was caused by fires, and 27 percent who had no opinion.
The poll results were published in September of last year, this as a digital billboard, showing the Building 7 collapse, was sponsored by the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and put on display in Times Square.
A number of other 9/11 researchers have noted that technology making it possible to fly passenger jets by remote control already existed in 2001–and some have pointed out that Rabbi Dov Zakheim, comptroller of the Bush Pentagon, had previously served as CEO of SPC International, a subsidiary of System Planning Corporation. The parent company was involved in producing “flight termination” technology (remote control technology which can be activated in the event a pilot becomes incapacitated) for the Pentagon, and is today considered one of the largest “support contractors” for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA.
Zakheim holds dual Israeli-US citizenship, and in 2000 he helped produce a report which envisioned a “catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor” as being necessary to garner public support for a US war in the Middle East. That report was published by the Project for a New American Century, a think tank founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, both Jewish.
Currently a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Zakheim has been described as the bionic Zionist, and is also believed to have been responsible for unaccounted-for Pentagon funds totaling $2.3 trillion which were reported missing or misplaced one day before 9/11. You can click here to view a video which delves somewhat into his family history (he is descended from Russian and Polish Jews), and which asserts that, “Of all the Zionists in Washington, Zakheim is considered the king.”
This and other evidence pointing to possible Jewish involvement in the 9/11 false flag, along with, of course, the existence of pro-Israel lobbies in virtually every Western country, has led many people to question the loyalty of Jews in general to their countries of residence–and that, too, is a disaster waiting to spring.
Jewish allegiance to the state of Israel is abundantly apparent everywhere you look these days. It doesn’t necessarily mean an absence of allegiance for countries of residence, but it does fuel endless questions in peoples’ minds about “dual loyalties” and the like. In some respects the mainstream media, albeit inadvertently, are providing fuel for the fire.
Recently the New York Times published an article headlined, Jewish American Pilots Fighting for Israel, concerning a documentary about Jewish fighter pilots who secretly fought in the 1948 war in Palestine (H/T Ariadna). The film is produced by Nancy Spielberg (sister of Steven Spielberg), and you can go here to view a trailer, which includes excerpts of interviews with some of the now-elderly pilots as well as some brief footage of devastation. “These fond recollections of derring-do hail from a different era,” says the Times, and while it is true we’re talking about events that occurred 67 years ago, one would also wonder whether this “different era” in question might also entail certain similarities in terms of Jewish tribal loyalties.
It might give us pause to also wonder: what is the difference between those who flew the planes in 1948 and those who remotely-controlled the airliners in 2001? Is the difference merely one of degrees? Is it that the airmen of 1948 attacked targets in Egypt and Syria while those of 2001 chose a target in America? Was the motivating factor, in any event, loyalty to Israel in both cases?
The question of Jewish loyalty has long been a topic of heated debate but has especially come to the forefront since the publication in 2007 of the book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. The authors did not address the issue of Jewish loyalty; their focus was solely upon the Israeli lobby and how its objectives are often at cross-purposes with US strategic interests. But by the very nature of the subject matter it covered, the book, almost by default, raised two very important and unavoidable issues:
A) That AIPAC is not like any other lobby in Washington–since one would be hard pressed to point to any other interest group that has successfully lobbied the US government to act against its own interests; and,
B) That questions about the loyalty of Jews who support AIPAC, including Jewish members of Congress, must be regarded as legitimate areas of concern
And it is probably for these very reasons that the book triggered–not unlike that which befell Dieudonné in terms of its general style and substance–a visceral and monumental reaction from Jews and the Zionist media (visceral reactions can be anticipated anytime any one of the four key beliefs are called into question), leading to attacks upon the authors and even calls for them to be stripped of their university teaching positions.
In any event, the question is fully out in the open now, with the issue of Jewish dual-loyalty being discussed by Gentiles, and even in some case by Jews, although many, particularly in the latter community, still refuse to recognize a divergence between US and Israeli interests.
But this should probably not come as a surprise. And as Kevin MacDonald reminds us, “Psychological research shows quite clearly that people with strong ingroup loyalties are likely to suffer cognitive distortions that would bias their attitudes and their policy recommendations.”
Of course at the same time there is no such thing as uniformity of thought amongst any people. Jews are no exception.Here are two Jews who hold that the very words “dual loyalties” are the equivalent of an “anti-Semitic slur,” while another, here, concedes that for Jews living in countries other than Israel “one’s loyalties are inevitably divided,” but that this is not a particularly big deal or anything to worry about.
And then there are those anti-Zionist Jews who express the view that Zionists themselves could be deliberately fomenting anti-Semitism (see here, here, and here ), with the motive of “ghettoizing” Jewish populations in Western countries, thereby inducing greater support for, and immigration to, Israel.
In some respects maybe it’s a moot point. The real issue is that the suspension bridge holding aloft the four key beliefs has a major fissure in it. Should the bridge collapse altogether, it will set the stage for a major sea change in public perceptions and attitudes toward Jews. For most Jews this would be a disaster in the making, although there are a few who perhaps will sense opportunity in it.
In any case, conditions of turmoil and uncertainty give rise to feelings of despair and acts of rashness, and as this happens the chances of a major, “world-changing” false flag event go up.
No comments:
Post a Comment