How the Israeli Regime Manipulates the "Exodus" Narrative

     Advertising has been defined as the art of making corporate propaganda look like revealed Truth.  In fact, I once took a master's level course called Advertising, Public Relations, and Propaganda.  All three areas comprise a single area of psychology.  All three areas involve bypassing rational processes.  

     No matter how rational you think you are, you don't have immunity to these techniques unless you know what they are.  I'll describe a few.

     Your rational mind has a gatekeeper, so to speak.  In some ways, it's like an anti-virus program on your computer.  

     When information comes knocking at the gate of your mind, the gatekeeper determines whether the information is true and just how credible it is.  This gatekeeper either rejects the information, or it accepts it as a document file.  If it passes the gatekeeper, it may eventually become part of your brain's hard wiring; in which case, it becomes harder to delete.

     Advertising (a.k.a. propaganda) seeks to fool the gatekeeper.  Just as a computer virus may be disguised as a harmless file extension such as JPEG, advertising is often disguised as entertainment.  If it fools the gatekeeper, it doesn't go into a file folder somewhere, where it may be easily deleted; instead, it goes directly to your brain's hard wiring.

     As early as the Middle Ages, some political leaders wouldn't undertake a major initiative until a minstrel has written and popularized a song about it.  It's hard to disagree with a song that you enjoy singing; and, since it's disguised as entertainment, it bypasses the rational thinking processes.
     Actually, this phenomenon goes beyond the art of disguising propaganda as entertainment.  This technique can employ anything that is designed to mimic something that you're already conditioned to accept.

     For example, suppose you're waiting your turn at the photocopier and someone else wants to cut in ahead of everyone else.  You're conditioned to believe that he shouldn't be allowed to do this unless he can offer a good reason for it.  
     Some years ago, psychologists created an experiment with three "groups" of unsuspecting subjects.  Individuals in the first group heard, "May I get ahead of you?"  Around two thirds of the subjects allowed the intrusion.  
     The second group of subjects heard, "May I get ahead of you?  I need to make some copies."  That, of course, was not a good reason, since that's the only reason anyone would use a photocopier.  Nonetheless, it had the structure of a rational argument, and the rate of agreement jumped to three fourths.  

     The subjects in the third group heard, "May I get ahead of you?  The boss needs some copies right away."  That, of course, was a valid reason.  The rate of agreement from this group was only slightly higher than for the second group.
     The conclusion of the study was that most people spend most of their time in a state of "non-thought" and are open to suggestion if they're offered what mimics a rational argument.  I'll get back to that one later.
     Let's consider another phenomenon: That it's difficult for the average person to maintain two separate images in their minds at the same time.
     In different parts of a single survey, people heard the same question twice.  The first time, they were asked if they agreed with the statement that "abortion is a personal decision to be decided between a woman and her doctor."  The second time, the statement was, "The rights of unborn children should be protected by law."  Both statements enjoyed agreement from two thirds of the respondents.

     In a nutshell, Israeli arguments for the occupation of Palestine mimic the popular version of the Genesis narrative pertaining to God's promises to Abraham.  You can  momentarily convince a supporter of Israel that the rights of Palestinians should be protected, but it's an easily deleted file.  The popular version of the Genesis narrative is part of their hard wiring.
     The only way that it can be deleted is through reformatting the hard drive.  You do that by creating a situation in which they have to watch both images at the same time.  Some will become very angry with you, but I see no other way.
     I said I'd get back to the mimicry.  So I shall.

     The Israeli narrative of their occupation of Palestine mimics the story of Exodus, in the Old Testament.  It's attractive but false.  It justifies ethnic cleansing because it mimics the Lord's command that the inhabitants of Palestine be driven from the land.  The the book of Exodus, the Israelite religion was just getting started, and the Philistines (ancestors of today's Palestinians) were an idolatrous people who may tempt the Israelites away from the Lord.
     Judaism today is well established.  Palestinians are predominantly Muslims, who more closely adhere to the Law of Moses (they call it Sharia Law) than the Jews do.  
     Furthermore, the Lord's promise to Abraham was that Abraham would become the father of "many nations," and not just the Jews.  The Promised Land was to be inherited by Abraham's descendants.  I've seen nothing in the Bible that would exclude the descendants of Abraham's firstborn son Ishmael, who was the ancestor of Mohammad.

     The Old Testament records examples of Israel descending into idolatry and other abominations, for which they were delivered into captivity.  Each time they returned to their homeland, it was because they were repentant and they were led by righteous men.  Each time they returned, they returned as peaceful new neighbors and not as conquerors.  They didn't steal land; they paid for it.
     There are other examples of the Israeli regime using mimicry for propaganda purposes, but I'll mention only two more:.
     One isthe attempt to equate opposition to Zionism with anti-Jewishness.  Like Satan, who disguises sin as enlightenment, the Zionists apply a thin veneer of counterfeit Jewishness to camouflage their corruption.  Jesus called religious leaders of their ilk "whited sepulchers." 
     The other is the deliberate confusion of the word mine, as in "This Land is Mine."  When you say, "This teddy bear is mine," you mean that you have exclusive ownership of it; you're free to tear off its arms if you wish.  "This dog is mine," limits your actions.  "This girl is my sister," has nothing to do with ownership; it refers only to a relationship.  "My homeland" is another relationship that mustn't be confused with ownership or sovereignty. During the time of Joshua, they "took possession of the land."  Afterward, they were returnees, and there is no biblical record of force being used against Jerusalem's inhabitants.
     I mentioned the possibility of forcing a deluded supporter of Zionism to come to grips with both the myth and the reality of "modern Israel" at the same time.  Here it is:             

 "This Land is Mine" (with introduction and subtitles)
or watch it at You Tube and the following URL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abBTrbDKwBo

How Easily Fooled Are You? Which will You Believe: Your Eyes or the Official Story?

     Common sense is built upon aphorisms that we regard as true. We have so much faith in common sense that our common sense may be used to mislead us.

     How’s that again? You see, many of our commonsense aphorisms contradict other aphorisms, and they’re often wrong. Let’s look at a couple of examples.

     We’re told, “Many hands make light work,” and we believe it. We’re also told, “Too many cooks spoil the broth,” and we believe that as well.

     We’re told, “Seeing is believing,” and we believe it. We’re also told, “Appearances are deceptive,” and we also believe that one.

     In this article, I’ll focus on the aphorism about seeing and believing. “Seeing is believing,” tends to be our default belief unless we’re given sufficient reason to doubt our eyes and accept the aphorism, “Appearances are deceptive.”

     The earlier in the process our viewpoint is changed, the less we notice the change. If the attempt to shift our viewpoint comes later, it probably won’t be accepted. Thus, if an opinion molder wants us to doubt the evidence of our eyes, he must make the attempt as soon as possible, before first impressions become final impressions.

     You may remember the Star Wars scene in which Obi Wan Kenobi says to a guard, “These are not the droids you want,” and the guard says to his partner, “These are not the droids we want.” From a psychological standpoint, Obi Wan Kenobi was what is called an authority figure.

     Authority figures often have the power to change our perceptions. An authority figure doesn’t have to be a dignified person, and he doesn’t have to be wearing a medical coat, a uniform, or a suit. If an “unbiased witness” is needed, an average-looking person in a baseball cap and a Harley shirt may be that authority figure.

     We’ll revisit the “Harley Guy” later in this article.

     I won’t tell you what to believe about the Kennedy Assassination, 9/11, or other events. I’ll simply ask you what your eyes tell you. You’re free to decide in each case whether seeing is believing or appearances are deceptive.  I promise not to bring up any conspiracy theories.

     You’ve seen dozens of replays of the Zapruder film. Please watch it once more and answer one question for yourself: “If I had never seen this clip before, and I had never heard the ‘official story,’ what would I believe, judging solely from what I see?” From which direction would you think the fatal shot came? (Click here for video.) Place your forefinger on your head to show where you think the bullet struck the President.

     In the next clip, you’ll see an official describing the assassination. This clip was filmed before the “official story” was established. Where does the spokesman place his forefinger? (Click here for video.)

     Then there are the autopsy photos.  No, not the drawings and other illustrations. You can easily find color photos on the Internet; but, in the interest of taste, I'm showing you a black-and-white photo.  (For an enlargement, click on the photo.)
      Judging from this photo, where does it look as though the exit wound would be located?  Is your answer consistent with  what you seem to see in the Zapruder film? 

       Now let’s move to September 11, 2001. Think about your impressions before you heard the “official story.”

     My wife told me that an airplane had crashed into the World Trade Center and “destroyed” it. Since English is her second language, I thought she had used the wrong word. Common sense told me that even a large airplane could not have “destroyed” the World Trade Center. I patiently said, “You mean that an airplane damaged it.”

     Only when she described the collapse of the buildings did I believe it had happened. She was the authority figure who overruled a commonsense belief; and, without further question, I accepted it as fact.

     You’ve all seen photos and videos of buildings destroyed by earthquakes, floods, or other non-controlled causes of demolition, including photos of tall buildings that were destroyed in such a manner as these. You’ve seen so many, in fact, that you have a fixed image of how these buildings are “supposed to look” after their destruction.

     Which word would better describe them: toppled or collapsed?

     You may also have seen videos of controlled demolitions of tall buildings. From these videos, you have a fixed image of how controlled demolitions are “supposed to look.” (Click here.)  Now let's look at some footage of buildings that were destroyed by other means.Which word would better describe most of these structures: toppled or collapsed?

Shoddy Construction 

Earthquake

Flood 

In India (unknown cause) 

In Turkey (unknown cause)

     Now let’s take a look at the destruction of three World Trade Center buildings. (South Tower) (North Tower) (Building 7) What happened to those three buildings? Did they topple or collapse?

     Of course, the videos use the word collapse is used for both forms of destruction, but the word topple is used only in a very few 9/11 videos: the ones intended to debunk all theories other than the official conspiracy theory. Again, judge for yourself. What do your eyes tell you? Is seeing believing, or are appearances deceptive?

     We’ve also seen how people react to sudden disasters. We have a fixed concept of how they tend to look, how they choose their words, and what happens to their enunciation under conditions of excitement. We also have a sense of the difference between the way people speak and the way people write.

     Watch the following clips and see the differences in the way the “witnesses” look, act, and sound.

     New York City firemen, the same day the World Trade Center collapsed.

     The Harley Guy, only minutes after the World Trade Center collapsed:, killing almost 3,000 people.

     Now let’s turn to the attack on the Pentagon. Look at the photo of an American Airlines Boeing 757—the type of plane said to have crashed into the first floor of the Pentagon. Does it look as though the nose cone of this plane could crash into the first floor without messing up the lawn?

     Take a look at the flight path of the vehicle that crashed into the Pentagon. Does that look like the flight path of a hijacker who indiscriminately crashed into any old section of the Pentagon? In case you’re wondering, if the vehicle had flown straight into the Pentagon, it would have struck Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s office. By making a 380-degree turn around it, he struck the comptroller’s office—the guy who was busily trying to find out what happened to $2.3 trillion that was missing from the Pentagon.

     Throughout this article, I’ve avoided bringing up conspiracy theories. All I did was show you videos and photos and asked you how they looked.

     Now that you’ve seen them, ask yourself: Is seeing believing, or are appearances deceptive?
Other September 11, 2001, articles in this blog

Israel's 9/11 Opportunities

     This is part 4 of a 4-part series on motive, means, and opportunity in the false-flag attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. To assign guilt in a criminal investigation, one must find out who had the motive for the crime, the means of committing the crime, and the opportunity to commit the crime.

     In part 1—“September 11’s Lucky Winners”—I described many ways that Israel benefited from the attack. Benjamin Netanyahu even went as far to say that 9/11 was "good for Israel."  I also showed that Israel not only benefited from the attack; I laid out proofs of Israeli foreknowledge of the attacks.

In part 2—“The ‘Official Story’ of 9/11: A Fairy Tale”—I proved that the nineteen Middle Easterners accused of the 9/11 attack could not possibly have done what they were accused of doing.  The words Official Story, in the title, are placed in quotation marks because of my discovery that there's often a stunning difference between what the corporate media tell us that the 9/11 Commission Report  says and what the 9/11 Commission Report actually says.

     In part 3—“Suspicious Timing: More Evidence of Israeli Prior Knowledge and Planning of 9/11”—I showed that an Israeli front group, supposedly formed in response to the needs of the post-9/11 world, had been formed several months before 9/11. I also proved that the group's leadership considerably overlapped with the leadership of the Project for the New American Century—the neoconservative group whose position papers cited the need for “a new Pearl Harbor” in order to bring about the changes they desired.

     Now we come to part 4: “Israel’s 9/11 Opportunities,” in which I show that most of the opportunities for bringing about the events of 9/11 were in the hands of Israelis and Americans who fronted for Israelis. High-level American officials had the power to help cover up the crime (here), but only Israel and their henchmen had the opportunities to carry out the crime every step of the way.

     What excuses did President Bush, de facto President Cheney, Condoleezza Rice—the unholy trio who lied to the American public over 90 times to get us into an illegal war in Iraq—and their allies make? They made two excuses:

     1. It was a failure of imagination; that is, (as Rice put it) no one could have foreseen that someone would use a commercial airliner as a bomb.
      2. The Bush Administration had relied too heavily on technology.

     The first excuse was disproven almost as soon as it was uttered. Terrorist Ramsey Yosef proposed it in 1993, and Philippine intelligence conveyed the message to the CIA. The CIA studied the possibility that same year. In 1994, author Tom Clancy described such an event as this in his book Debt of Honor. 

     In 1996, the movie The Long Kiss Goodnight was about a false-flag terrorist act killing a projected 4,000 people and blaming it on the Muslims.  (Click here for video clip.) 

     On March 4, 2001, television director Chris Carter chillingly portrayed the events of 9/11 several months before they took place.  In the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen, an X-Files spin-off, high-level government officials in the intelligence community used remote-control technology to electronically hijack an airliner, intending to crash it into the World Trade Center and blame it on the Arabs.

     In 2003, the Bush Administration admitted that, on the morning of September 11, 2001, a war games scenario was taking place which posited the use of hijacked commercial airliners as flying bombs.  (Click here.)

     So much for a “failure of imagination.” What about the over-reliance on technology? Who controlled the technology?

     Whoever pulled off 9/11 had to have had the means to get nineteen misfits through security screening. Who was in charge of security at those airports?

     Whoever pulled off 9/11 had to have had the means to prevent America’s military pilots form following normal procedure by scrambling as soon as the airliners veered off course. Who designed the technology on which the military relied for that purpose?

     Ground controllers were confused by computer-simulated planes as a result of the war games that were taking place at the same time as the hijackings. Several orders were given to delete those signals, but the problem continued until after the real terrorist attacks were over.    Who designed the program they were using—the program that made it impossible for air traffic controllers to tell where the real airliners were?

     Who was in charge of security at the World Trade Center up to the day it was destroyed? Who was in charge of port security at New York Harbor? Who designed other security systems that facilitated the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?

     Demonstrating who had the technological opportunities to bring about 9/11 leaves me with two unpleasant options. Either I can refer you to the research others have done, or I can, so to speak, try to re-invent the wheel by copying their research. To save both you and me the trouble, I’ll refer you to what others have found.

     The answer to all these questions and more can be found in the Vatic Project article “Israel Did 9/11: All the Proof in the World.” In support of Vatic’s findings, here is an article from the web site What Really Happened, showing that Israelis were in control of security at all three of the airports involved in 9/11.   
     More recently, Vatic has uncovered evidence that the 9/11 mastermind was Dov Zakheim, a reputed dual-citizen Israeli who was well positioned for several opportunities to effect 9/11. I mention this particular video because it addresses one question that “All the Proof in the World” didn’t address: Who designed and marketed the technology that made it possible for airliners to be electronically hijacked (a standard safety feature on all commercial airliners for several decades)? Until Zakheim began working for the Pentagon, he was the CEO of the company that designed and marketed the software that made it possible to precision guide commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. (Click here.)

     There you have it. The Israelis, with their long history of false flag attacks, benefited most from 9/11. Muslims gained nothing but suffering, death, rejection, and ruin from it.

     By the Bush Administration’s admission, 9/11 happened because America’s over-reliance on certain technology. At every turn, that technology was either designed by, or controlled by, Israelis. They, and only they, had the means and the opportunity to use the technology necessary for bringing about the events of 9/11.

     People who are prone to cry, “Conspiracy theorist,” will undoubtedly say that what I’ve written in this series of articles contradicts the 9/11 Commission Report. It doesn’t. Of the 585 pages in the 9/11 Commission Report, only 13 pages describe the Commission’s version of the hijacking. Only 86 pages describe events that occurred that day. Mostly, the 9/11 Commission Report is about terrorism in other parts of the world.  Pages 325 through 585 are devoted entirely on anti-terrorist strategies for the future.
      Bear in mind that the Bush Administration had resisted calls for any investigation of 9/11 at all.  Only public outrage and demand led to the 9/11 Commission convening 441 days after the attacks had occurred.  By contrast, the Monica Lewinsky investigation began less than two weeks after the news broke.  Some $100 million was spent on the Lewinsky investigation, as compared to $14 million for the 9/11 Commission. 
     Even a glance at the table of contents is enough to convince you that the real purpose of the Report was to justify the Bush Administration's war on American liberties and the U.S. government's illegal intervention in other countries.

     Read it. (For a free PDF download, click here.) You’ll be amazed at how little the 9/11 Commission Report says about 9/11. After reading it, you’ll probably ask, “Why?”
Other September 11, 2001, articles in this blog