Comparisons are said to be invidious, but in the right hands they can be very illuminating. The toxic dust from the economic 9/11 of 2008 hadn’t even begun to settle when a perceptive observer noticed an important connection to the geopolitical fallout from the more dramatic 9/11 seven years earlier.
On September 16, Gilad Atzmon, an Israeli expatriate, told the Cambridge Forum: “As the picture of the current economic disaster becomes ever more clear, it becomes rather obvious, to me at least, that the ideology and the people who are directly responsible for the mass killing of millions of Iraqis and the displacement of many other millions, the people who keep the Palestinians starved behind walls, are unfortunately very much the same people who are responsible for a class genocide of millions of disenfranchised Americans who are now on the brink of total dispossession.”
To illustrate, Atzmon outlined two key doctrines which had catalyzed these apparently disparate crises.
The 2003 invasion of Iraq, Atzmon said, had its origins in the Pentagon’s 1992 Defense Planning Guidance. Drafted by the then undersecretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz and his protégé Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the “Wolfowitz Doctrine” urged America to assume a more assertive, interventionist role in the post-Cold War world, particularly in the Middle East.
But essentially it was an “imperialist Zio-centric document” which proposed “to merge American and global Zionist interests into a unified belligerent practice.” And America’s thirst for Arab oil was the key to achieving this merger. “Wolfowitz and Libby, so it seemed at the time, found the way to heaven. They were about to kill two birds with just a single (cruise missile) shot. They planned to rob the Arab oil and to ‘secure’ their beloved Jewish state simultaneously.”
Similarly, Atzmon traced the financial collapse of 2008 to policies advanced by the then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan. By encouraging underprivileged Americans to recklessly borrow and spend, the “Greenspan Doctrine” fueled the subprime mortgage boom which helped “to finance the wars perpetrated by his ideological brothers Libby and Wolfowitz.”
“He knew very well that as long as Americans were doing well, buying and selling homes, his President would be able to pursue implementing the ‘Wolfowitz doctrine’ destroying the ‘bad Arabs’ in the name of ‘democracy’.”
While the bold experiments proposed by Wolfowitz and Greenspan may have “looked promising on paper,” they ultimately proved to be disastrous not only for the Middle East, but also for America. But this, Atzmon said, shouldn’t have surprised anyone.
“Let me tell you, the pattern is familiar, these wonderful people always try to save the world. They ‘bring’ democracy to the Arabs, they ‘bring’ equality to the poor. But somehow, Israel is always set to benefit.”
Shortly after Atzmon delivered his “Credit Crunch Or Rather Zio-Punch?” talk, a most important book was published which came to the very same conclusion. However, in Guilt By Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War, Jeff Gates shows precisely how Americans were deceived.
Central to Gates’ analysis is the concept of “the people in between.”
“The national mental state is the in between battleground where the people in between displace facts with what people can be deceived to believe.”
Clearly, Wolfowitz and Greenspan fit this description perfectly. In the interlocking spheres of geopolitics and economics, they had waged unconventional warfare on the minds of Americans – all for the sake of Zion.
In an interview with this writer, published as “The Source of the Economic Crisis: A Chicago State of Mind,” Gates elaborated on how this Zionist duplicity operates: “All flows downstream from a ‘consensus’ perspective – regardless whether the deception is a shared belief in Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or a consensus faith in the infallibility of unfettered financial markets. The modus operandi is identical – the displacement of facts with beliefs.”
In his talk, Gilad Atzmon decried “our apathy towards the suffering of others that makes Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan into a single narrative of Western collective indifference.” However, our economic pain, Atzmon believes, “provides us with an opportunity to see that as far as misery is concerned, we are together with the Palestinians, the Iraqis and the Afghans. We share one enemy.”
To drive home the point to his Cambridge audience, he reminded them: “The same ideology that brought carnage on Iraq and Palestine is the same ideology that makes you lose your home tomorrow.” That being the case, then, in a very real sense, aren’t we all Palestinians now?
And just as that most subjugated people periodically rise up “to shake off” (the literal meaning of intifada) their oppressors, if the systematically deceived people of the world ever see through the fog of deception, they may realize it’s time for the first global Intifada.