By

Jay Dyer

21st Century Wire

In the wake of recent psy ops news (in other words, news in general), an interesting conundrum was apparent to me today, when we consider the hype surrounding Chris Kyle and his legendary sniping skills, and the death of the King Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia. What a quandary the average American patriot must be in here, as the same establishment lionizing Kyle as a hero is simultaneously lauding one of the chief terror exporters – the Saudi regime.

If Chris Kyle is a hero, why is the establishment he fought for exalting the Saudi King? If the Saudi King is a nefarious character, then Chris Kyle fought for a corrupt administration, regardless of his personal desires and motivations.



CASTING CALL: The Saudi King, the American Sniper and Jihadi John – each play a role in the ongoing geopolitical psycho-drama.

This ridiculous contradiction is lost on most of the public, who are ferocious in their re-energized neo-conservative zeal for mindless, frothing militarism and death worship. I am no pacifist, and I certainly advocate a strong male image, but you’ll notice the same establishment that promotes destructive feminism and constantly denigrates masculinity, now suddenly allows a sanctioned image of masculinity because it was a trained killer for the corrupt establishment. In any other case, Kyle would be lambasted as a Neanderthal ape.

The Pan-Arabian Enquirer noticed this laughable dilemma today, pointing out the embarrassment displayed in the glowing similarities in the US and ISIS eulogies for King Abdullah:

“There were red faces in both the corridors of the White House and across the Islamic State last night after it emerged that the US and ISIS tributes sent to the late King Abdullah were noticeably alike.

In both statements, Abdullah was praised for his “vision and leadership”, as someone who “had the courage of his convictions” and “constantly strived for unity across borders in the Middle East.” The US and ISIS also hailed the late monarch as a man who, “in a turbulent region, demonstrated his commitment to law, order and the principle of the pretty barbaric public execution.”

According to sources, to diminish further embarrassment ISIS have requested that its representative at the official state funeral be not placed next to Joe Biden.”

This doublethink and double-mind is like some Max Tegmarck equation for the Average Joe. Even more amazing, this hypocrisy follows yesterday’s news dug up from New York Times archives that ISIS is admittedly a fake, western intelligence creation! I cite again the report because it has tremendous import for this bizarre, Twilight Zone scenario involving the promotion of both Kyle and the Saudi monarch:

“For more than a year, the leader of one the most notorious insurgent groups in Iraq was said to be a mysterious Iraqi named Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi.

As the titular head of the Islamic State in Iraq, an organization publicly backed by Al Qaeda, Baghdadi issued a steady stream of incendiary pronouncements. Despite claims by Iraqi officials that he had been killed in May, Baghdadi appeared to have persevered unscathed.

On Wednesday, a senior American military spokesman provided a new explanation for Baghdadi’s ability to escape attack: He never existed.

Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, the chief American military spokesman, said the elusive Baghdadi was actually a fictional character whose audio-taped declarations were provided by an elderly actor named Abu Adullah al-Naima.”

The recent ISIS videos are also being called out as fake in mainstream news, as the videos demonstrate obvious doctoring. Even Fox is reporting that experts are saying what is obvious to anyone with basic critical thinking. And in relation to the money and media power ISIS seems to have, recall that Patrick Henningsen broke that report months ago, with his “Sand Pirates” analysis showing who backs ISIS:

It could be said that the Sultan Mohammed’s ladder day role is being shared by the US-UK-Franco (NATO) Axis and their GCC Gulf allies – the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Bahrain et all – all sponsors of the terrorist confab currently laying siege to two of the Middle East’s only secular governments – Syria and Iraq. Each of these monarchies have their own designs on the important strategic and resource rich compartments in Syria and Iraq.

It’s been said how the former Emir of Qatar was looking forward to seeing his son Tamim as head of a new Syrian Emirate. Gas-rich Qatar has been a primary backer of the Syrian rebels since the armed civil war began in 2011, hoping to topple the Bashar al-Assad regime.

The Guardian also reported on WikiLeaks cables revealing Saudi terror money, while Fox reported today on the recent ISIS video, even admitting it is filmed with a green screen, as follows:

“The hostage video showing the hostages wearing orange jump suits and kneeling before a masked, black-clad jihadist may have been faked, experts said. New analysis of the video appears to reveal the message was shot indoors using a “green screen,” and a phony backdrop, according to Veryan Khan, editorial director for the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium. She told The Associated Press the light source on the men in the latest videos appears to be coming from two different directions — as opposed to one bright sun, and said if the video was made outdoors in natural light, the shadows behind them should be going in one direction. Instead, they converge.”

In order to understand global Islamic terror, as I have been writing for a few years now, it is necessary to understand the setting back to the British Empire and Saudi Wahhabism. The Saudis have a long history of supporting global terror, while being in bed with the Atlanticist establishment for the past century. The British Empire in fact carved up the Middle East into “nations” like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iraq. When OPEC is taken into the equation, the long time business deals and interconnected support makes perfect sense. Researchers in alternative media will recall the deep connections between the Bush family and Saudi Royalty, for example.

However, for context, it is worth reading the excellent piece by the Collins brothers, “Destabilization: Directed Discontent in Egypt and Beyond,” where they deconstruct the history of Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood’s intimate associations with the West. As I wrote yesterday, in understanding global destabilization and neo-liberal/neo-conservative imperial imposition, one must understand the cover operations of NGOs, or non-government organizations (such as Freedom House or National Endowment for Democracy) that also mirrors the same pattern and program we have seen divide Ukraine through the “Orange” color revolution. That they are a cover, the Collins cite Blum, “Allen Weinstein, one of the drafters of the legislation that established the NED, was quoted in 1991 saying: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA” (Blum).”

The Collins brothers explain in detail:

“According to Nye, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) qualify as adept practitioners of soft power. As such, national governments find themselves locked in a rather delicate relational dynamic with NGOs. Because NGOs wield a considerable amount of political and social capital, this union stipulates both cooperation and guarded vigilance on the part of national governments. Nye explains: “…the information revolution has greatly enhanced NGO’s soft power. Because they are able to attract followers, governments have to take NGOs into account as both allies and adversaries” (90). As an NGO, Freedom House must be regarded with the same sort of ambivalence. Unfortunately, Freedom House is currently viewed with far less suspicion. In fact, the American government has embraced Freedom House as an unquestioned ally. The alliance between government and NGOs such as Freedom House has led to private forces exerting an unhealthy influence on foreign policy and national politics.

Not surprisingly, Freedom House’s use of soft power in other countries has drawn criticism. U.S. Representative Ron Paul is among those who object to Freedom House’s interference in the domestic affairs of other nations. On December 7, 2004, Paul accused Freedom House of acting as a conduit for “one-sided U.S. funding” in the 2004 Ukrainian election:

…the U.S. government, through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), granted millions of dollars to the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative (PAUCI), which is administered by the U.S.-based Freedom House.

PAUCI then sent U.S. government funds to numerous Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This would be bad enough and would in itself constitute meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. But, what is worse is that many of these grantee organizations in Ukraine are blatantly in favor of presidential candidate Viktor Yushenko. (“U.S. Hypocrisy on Ukraine”)”

Understanding this NGO strategy with Egypt and Ukraine, we can thus look to the history of modern, radical Islam as falling under the same purview – a useful tool of larger power blocs. The Muslim Brotherhood’s origins are that of British Intelligence and classic con-artistry, as opposed to the lesser radical religious imagery they are portrayed having in the media. According to Robert Dreyfuss in his book, Devil’s Game, Al-Afghani, a founding figure in the Brotherhood’s history, was not an Arab (Persian), or even a theist. From his pan-Islamic movement would emerge the Brotherhood of al-Banna, and with al-Banna, we have the connect to Freemasonry and Saudi Arabia:

“It is impossible to overestimate the importance and legacy of Hassan al-Banna. The twenty-first century War on Terrorism is a war against the offspring of Banna and his Brothers. They show up everywhere – in the attorney general’s office in Sudan, on Afghanistan’s battlefields, in Hama in Syria, atop Saudi Arabia’s universities, in bomb-making factories in Gaza, as ministers in the government of Jordan, in posh banking centers in the Gulf sheikhdoms and in the post-Saddam Hussein government. (50-1)”

In trying to understand the manipulative geopolitics at work here, the crux of the matter is that the United States is not the United States most people think. Chris Kyle was not fighting for patriotic interests that protected the homeland from foreign agressors, but was a soldier for the banking empire that runs America and London. This empire is presently meeting at Davos and planning the next phases of global destabilization and NATO expansion, while in the US, the “freedoms” Kyle supposedly fought for are laughably curtailed by the present puppet administration in power, as they praise a global terror regime.

Americans love to cheer on the regime changes in foreign nations, yet fail to see their own leader is no different than a CIA puppet in Liberia. As we saw with Gaddhafi, being a puppet of the West is generally a losing proposition.

Years ago, the Collins brothers once again called it:

“According to former CIA operative Robert Baer, Hamas was an offshoot of the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (172). Founded in 1928 by an Egyptian schoolteacher named Hassan al-Banna with the expressed purpose of purifying Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood is anything but a benign Muslim organization (172). According to Baer, the Brotherhood “is another of the cauldrons from which al Qaeda emerged” (172). Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the architect of the September 11 attacks, joined the Muslim Brotherhood at the age of sixteen and attended the Brotherhood’s desert youth camps (Mintz and Farah, “In Search of Friends Among Foes”). Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Egyptian branch (ibid). According to Seymour Hersh, the Brotherhood may have even been involved in the September 11 attacks. Hersh states: “Many of the September 11th hijackers had operated out of cells in Aachen and Hamburg, where Al Qaeda was working with the Brotherhood” (“The Syrian Bet”). The Brotherhood’s hatred of the United States was clearly expressed in a 1991 internal memorandum written by Mohamed Akram for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood. Entitled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,” the document states that the Brotherhood’s activities in the United States represent:

“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (“Hamas Covenant 1988″)

Akram’s memorandum failed to mention the powerful, white, English-speaking individuals that have given assistance to the Brotherhood’s “grand Jihad.” The Muslim Brotherhood is not only a radical and dangerous party; it is intimately tied to the power elite. This connection probably had its start prior to World War Two when British travel writer and intelligence agent Freya Stark forged an alliance between the Brotherhood and British intelligence (Dorril 622). Brotherhood collaboration with Western intelligence continued with an alliance between the Brotherhood and the CIA that began around 1955. According to former CIA agent Miles Copeland, it was around this time that America began looking for the Muslim equivalent of Billy Graham, hoping to use such a charismatic individual to influence the Arab world. When this failed, the Agency began forging ties with the Muslim Brotherhood (Aburish 60-61).

See also here. For more background, watch these two insightful pieces…



.

READ MORE ABOUT PROPAGANDA AT: 21st Century Wire Propaganda Files

21WIRE contributor and author Jay Dyer is commentator on media, art, philosophy and culture. An earlier version of this article and many others, along with Jay’s podcast archive can be found on his blog Jay’s Analysis.