By Moti Nissani

They’ll talk about change, about politics, about reform, about corruption, but they will never talk about war unless they mean something happening far away.  Because to admit the existence of the war waged against us is to admit that we are combatants, and if we see that we are not fighting back, then we would have to admit that we have surrendered.  That we have already been defeated.—The Arctic Circle Collective 

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.

Summary:  This 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.

Table of Contents

• Motto
• Summary
• A Distressingly Long Essay?
• Looking Back on Parts I-V of  “A Bird’s Eye View of Terror”
• Do We Need Two More Proofs of the Dissident View of Terror?
• The Arch-Conspiratorial Bankers are Capable of any Crime Whatsoever

1. On the Ignorance (or Mendaciousness) of Conspiracy Scoffers
2. A Few Comments on Our Terrible Normality
3. One Example of our Terrible Normality: The Divide and Rule Strategy
4. A Second Example of our Terrible Normality: The Bankers’ War on the Children of the World
5. The Bankers are not Content with Conspiracies and Genocides—Now and then they emerge out of the Shadows to Brag about their Misdeeds and Intentions
6. Conclusion

Logical Proof I. Who benefits?

1. Grapes of Wrath for “Terrorists”
2. Rulers Charged with Aiding and Abetting Terror
3. Countries Charged with Aiding and Abetting Terror
4. Alleged Architects and Perpetrators of Terror
5. Collapse-of-Empire Counterargument
6. Economic Collapse had been Premeditatedly Set in Motion Long Before 2001
7. Each and Every Inaction of our Rulers Suggests that they wish to Bring about Economic Collapse
8. Collapsing the Economy is a Time-Honored Strategy of the Bankers
9. Economic Collapse Can be Best Seen as a Stepping Stone in the Bankers’ Plan to Enslave the USA’s and the World’s People
10. Grapes of Wrath for Terrorists:  Conclusion
11. Pastures of Plenty for Bankers
12. The Bankers Don’t Care about You–at all
13. The War on Terror Enriches the Bankers and their Allies
14. The War on Terror Distracts us from an Ongoing:
15. Vicious Class War
16. Descent to Slavery
17. Destruction of the Biosphere
18. The War on Terror Justifies the Bankers’ pre-2001 Scheme (through reliance, chiefly, on their Handmaidens in DC and London) of Economic and Military Conquest of the Entire Planet
19. The War on Terror Justifies the Stepwise Conversion of American Plutocracy into a Full-Fledged 1984
20. The War On Terror Serves as a Valuable Laboratory Exercise, an Experiment, from which the Men in the Shadows Draw Lessons about Preempting, Co-Opting, and Stifling Dissent and Revolution, Enslaving Humanity, and Destroying the Biosphere
21. For the Short-Sighted Rulers of Israel, the War on Terror is a Dream Come True
22. Conclusion of Logical Proof I

Logical Proof II.  A Real Terrorist would have Resorted to the Well-Known and Astoundingly Effective Al Sabbah’s (or CIA’s) Intimidation/Decapitation Approach, not to the Self-Defeating Shotgun Approach of Killing Innocent Men, Women, and Children

1. In the Ancient World, Empires and Rulers Safeguarded their Power and Privileges by Assassinating Influential Opponents
2. In the Contemporary World too, Empires and Rulers Safeguard their Power and Privileges by Assassinating Influential Opponents
3. Noboru Takeshita of Japan
4. Martin Luther King of the USA
5. Rene Schneider and Salvador Allende of Chile
6. Assassinations Safeguard the Bankers’ Upside-Down World
7. The Al Sabbah Strategy
8. Preliminary Observations
9. Reasons for the Al Sabbah Revolt
10. The Capture of the Alamut Fortress
11. Al Sabbah’s Intimidation/Decapitation Strategy
12. Terror Revisited
13. The Revolutionary’s Dilemma Counterargument

Parting Words: The Al Sabbah Strategy
Selected Notes and References (links to some notes and references are only provided within the text)
 ______________________________

A Distressingly Long Essay?

The present sixth essay of “A Bird’s Eye View of Terror” puts the last nail in the coffin of the official view of terror.
My original plan for this essay involved a short essay.  I forgot however what I myself had been preaching for a long time.^[1]  That is, the outcome of a writing project cannot be determined in advance.  Given the complexity and importance of this subject, brevity gave way to comprehensiveness.
Thus, this essay is written for readers who are commencing their ascent from the cave of political illiteracy and who are not yet familiar with key features of contemporary history.  Other readers may wish to avail themselves of a shortcut:  Consult the Summary and Table of Contents above and only read sections of interest to their own evolving worldview.

Looking Back on Parts I-V of  “A Bird’s Eye View of Terror”

Two principles underlie this six-part series.
The first…