The Weekly Standard has an insightful article in the 27 May Edition. Here is the headline with a couple of choice excerpts:

Pipeline Politics

Is Putin running out of gas?

May 27, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 35
BY ALEX ALEXIEV and STEVEN F. HAYWARD

Last October we explained how the Benghazi incident  highlighted the very sad politicization of the Intelligence reporting of the United States. Not at the functional level, but at various points in the political leadership. Click the link below and read the post in light of this week’s revelations:

It Doesn’t Fit the Narrative

To be fair, there were cases of politicization of defense and intelligence matters in the Bush years as well, with the media questioning whether or not there really were WMDs in Iraq and the whole Valerie Plame situation to name a couple of incidents.

In our case, we have first-hand evidence of a problem in this regard. We were repeatedly told that “no one wants to go there”  and that “it doesn’t fit the narrative” when we presented credible evidence of financial market manipulation that took place in 2008 and threats of worse going forward. In private meetings with Intelligence Officials, some privately acknowledged that “the narrative” prevented a thorough review of what took place in the financial crash. They said it was “in the past” and no one wanted to look back. Of course, this is from the same Administration that said last September’s Benghazi tragedy was “a long time ago.”

The fact is that I was recruited by the Department of Defense to produce a report that clearly demonstrated American vulnerability to economic warfare. I then spent months attempting to draw serious attention to this shocking reality. There was an internal political effort to marginalize the issue and even threats to classify the work to prevent Americans from seeing it. We have the emails that prove this. When the report finally surfaced, there was a vitriolic discredit effort launched at Media Matters and other locations. But that is politics and it is easy to understand why Media Matters, funded in part by George Soros might have their opinion. Even Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, no right-winger, understands the political agenda behind Media Matters. But the most troubling aspect is that the Administration purposely avoided looking into the economic warfare threat. This isn’t just our view, it was what was clearly shared with Bill Gertz by Pentagon Insiders in 2011:

Financial terrorism suspected in 2008 economic crash

Pentagon study sees element

“Regardless of the report’s findings, U.S. officials and outside analysts said the Pentagon, the Treasury Department and U.S. intelligence agencies are not aggressively studying the threats to the United States posed by economic warfare and financial terrorism.

‘Nobody wants to go there,’ one official said.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/28/financial-terrorism-suspected-in-08-economic-crash/#ixzz2Svf96CSh

Now, it is essential to note that Bill Gertz is considered the preeminent Defense reporter in America and his sources are believed unimpeachable. That opinion was shared in an article by Jamie McIntyre, a former CNN reporter who covered the Pentagon for more than a decade and now anchors at NPR‘s  All Things Considered, just before Gertz wrote the article on Financial terrorism. From Freepressers.com:

Rumsfeld on the press: Bill Gertz was the ‘best reporter, excellent sources’

Posted by FreepressersLife, U.S. Media1:54 am  February 8 2011

By Jamie McIntyre, formerly of CNN

Shortly after his arrival at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld apparently rendered a quick judgment on the reporters covering the Pentagon, and pronounced Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, the “best reporter”.  “Excellent sources,” he noted.

The judgments can be found in one of his famously terse “snowflakes” posted along with the hundreds of recently declassified documents Rumsfeld has posted to back up his arguments in his new memoir Known and Unknown . . .

And Bill Gertz does, in fact, have the deepest and most amazing sources, especially on the very difficult intelligence beat.   Never wrong.   And that’s saying something.

Gertz has also been reporting on the Benghazi Failures: http://freebeacon.com/benghazi-failure/. This time, though, he is not alone. ABC News has a very dramatic story that documents how distinctly intelligence was doctored for political means:

Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

By Jonathan Karl @jonkarl Follow on Twitter  May 10, 2013 6:33am

Other news sources also have reports on how the intelligence function has been politicized:

Obama administration e-mails raise new questions on Benghazi

MSNBC Guests: Benghazi Scandal Makes White House ‘Look Terrible,’ Possibly An ‘Impeachment Issue’

by Noah Rothman | 1:12 pm, May 10th, 2013

The Inconvenient Truth About Benghazi

by Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2013

Lara Logan of 60 Minutes made it very clear that she believed the Administration was “lying to us” for political reasons in a speech in Chicago last year:

During a recent keynote address at the Better Government Association annual  luncheon last Tuesday, Logan delivered what the Chicago Sun Times called “a provocative speech” to some  1,100 movers in government, politics, media, and the legal and corporate arenas.  She explained that the Taliban, al Qaeda and its proxies haven’t gone away and  are in fact re-energized and coming back in force. Logan also informed the crowd  that a “lie” is being propagated by the American government.

“I chose this subject because, one, I can’t stand, that there is a major lie  being propagated…” Logan announced. The lie is that the U.S. military has  tamed the Taliban.

“There is this narrative coming out of Washington for the last two years,” Logan began. It is driven in part by “Taliban apologists,“ who claim ”they are  just the poor moderate, gentler, kinder Taliban.”

“It’s such nonsense!”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/cbs-lara-logan-government-and-media-lying-about-strength-of-islamic-threat-2012-10#ixzz28rlNdZP3

Now, add to these revelations the IRS admission that it targeted Tea Parties and Patriot Groups and you get sick sense that somehow the whole system has been politicized. The IRS has since backtracked from the original apology to something more politically acceptable, but the credibility damage has already taken place:

On 5 May, we posted our analysis of an excellent paper written by a top team from the Carnegie Endowment, China’s Military and the U.S.-Japan Alliance in 2030: A Strategic Net Assessment:

It Is All About The Economy

In that post, we made the case that the primary difference between success and failure in Asia is determined by relative economic strength. We then went on to share the likelihood that potential enemies were well aware of this and have targeted our economy as a result.

While we tend to view the global economy as a marketplace, our enemies view it as a battle space.

We indirectly received criticism from the original authors of the Carnegie study that we felt was worth mentioning. Basically, the criticism is that my interpretation should not be assumed to be accurate as it appears based on a summary provided in WIRED magazine. Have to say, guilty as charged. I did read the Executive Summary as well as the WIRED interpretation.

Now, to be fair to the authors, here are the excellent Key Findings the actual study lists:

KEY FINDINGS

The most likely potential challenge to the U.S.-Japan alliance over the next fifteen to twenty years does not involve full-scale military conflict between China and Japan or the United States—for example, one originating from Chinese efforts to expel Washington from the region.

• ƒƒThe likeliest challenge instead stems from Beijing’s growing coercive power—increasing Chinese military capabilities could enable Beijing to influence or attempt to resolve disputes with Tokyo in its favor short of military attack.

• ƒƒAn increase in the People’s Liberation Army’s presence in airspace and waters near Japan and disputed territories could also heighten the risk of destabilizing political-military crises.

• ƒƒSignificant absolute and possibly relative shifts in the military balance between China and the alliance in Japan’s vicinity are likely.

• ƒƒIn the most probable future scenarios facing these three actors, the U.S.-Japan alliance will either only narrowly retain military superiority in the airspace and waters near Japan or the balance will become uncertain at best.

• ƒƒA significant drop in the potential threat posed by China is also possible if the Chinese economy falters and Beijing redirects its attention and resources toward maintaining internal stability.

• ƒƒMore dramatic shifts in the strategic landscape are unlikely in the fifteen- to twenty-year time frame. Such shifts include an Asian cold war pitting a normalized U.S.-Japan alliance against a belligerent China and a major withdrawal of U.S. presence that heralds either the dawning of a Sino-centric Asia or the emergence of intense Sino-Japanese rivalry with Japanese nuclearization.

After receiving the criticism, I went back and reviewed the entire 422-page study. I can now share that I did not accurately reflect the conclusions of the full study as written by the study’s authors. I did, however, assume them to be true and applaud the team for excellent work.

Ironically, my conclusions were based rather neatly on their assumptions, or more precisely on their input variables. In other words, I reverse engineered the study and drew an entirely new set of conclusions as a result. After thorough reflection, I stand behind what I concluded and still applaud the excellent work of the study. Here is Figure One from the study’s Executive Summary:

Basically, I looked at the three prominent outcomes as described by WIRED and focused on the independent and exogenous variables. Of greatest interest were economic and technological capacity, sociodemographic factors, and wild cards such as global economic crisis and energy shocks. From my work, these are not external to the equation but meaningfully part of it based on the Unrestricted Warfare view. This view states, for example, that external energy shocks can be weapons used to create a desired outcome.

It is important to note that my analytical approach is actually typical for financial analysts but atypical for academic analysts. A financial analyst has to absorb a great deal of data and draw a rapid buy/sell conclusion. A financial analyst can’t enjoy the luxury of stating that a stock is a buy if the company meets its earnings targets as that information will instantaneously be priced into the stock when announced. A number of direct assumptions have to be absorbed rather quickly and the entire system must be taken as a whole.

To be certain, our approach is much more a “big picture” approach than the detailed and specific analytics required of many other disciplines. A recent consideration of “forest vs. trees” also illuminates a difference between a Western and Eastern approach. This was illustrated in COMMENTS ON AUSTRALIA’S STRATEGIC EDGE IN 2030, recently sent to me by an Australian analyst:

Western observers seem much more likely than those in East Asia to be unable to see the ‘forest’ for all the ‘trees’.

“….. researchers used an eye-tracking device to pinpoint exactly where participants look when given a photo with a salient object (e.g., a train) set against a busy background. Americans looked outside the object an average of one time but had eight or nine fixations on the actual object. On the other hand, Chinese participants had one sharp initial fixation on the object followed by five or six fixations on the background context. “If people are seeing different things, it may be because they are looking differently at the world,” ….” (West C. How Culture Affects the Way we Think’, Observer, V20, No 7, 2007)

This difference in ways of looking at a situation is not limited to visual perception. Western minds rationally focus on specific causes and effects (ie ‘trees’), while an East Asian assessment of a situation will tend to be in terms of all the factors present and how they relate or can be made to relate (ie ‘forests’), rather than on individual elements. A noted Japanese ultranationalist once enigmatically remarked that ‘The only things in this room that are truly Japanese are the things you cannot see’ (ie what was truly Japanese was not the things, but the way they were arranged / related).

Illustration: Japan has many ‘things’ / ‘trees’ that look familiar (eg democratic / elected governments, a bureaucracy, banks, businesses) but it is misleading to assume that when one looks at those apparently familiar ‘things’ that one has understood Japan – because those ‘things’ operate in a way that Western observers won’t be aware of (eg are driven by hierarchical social relationships rather than abstract concepts such as law or accounting principles) because of invisible cultural differences. And the consequences [??] can also be virtually invisible to those who that looking at the apparently-familiar ‘things’ / ‘trees’ is sufficient to provide understanding.

Western methods of dealing with problems tend to focus rationally on individual components / projects subject to well established ‘rules of the game’ (eg law, accounting principles) which make it possible to ignore other parts of the ‘forest’ when dealing with a particular ‘tree’. However in East Asia ‘rules of the game’. Deng Xiaoping (China’s former paramount leader and the architect of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’) famously argued that whether something worked was the sole criteria for whether or not it was good: “It doesn’t matter whether it’s a white cat or a black, I think; a cat that catches mice is a good cat.” 

Problems are traditionally addressed without assuming that there are any unchangeable ‘rules of the game’ by bringing the problem to the attention of all the ‘trees’ and then trying to bring together diverse and mutually-reinforcing contributions from all over the ‘forest’ into a solution (which then reinforces the power of an established regime, or becomes a new political power base – as Bo Xilia seemed to be attempting in China).  Power is not associated with making decisions but with using strategic information to induce others to take favourable actions. The Japanese strategy game of Go does not involve a single contest, but rather involves multiple, simultaneous contests anywhere on a large board. Where interests clash and neo-Confucian methods are being used to seek power, nothing may be publicly said but diverse and apparently unrelated contests will occur in many different places.

What this suggests is that what we may see as independent variables and exogenous factors may be viewed by the Chinese as elements of power , not separating military and non-military as we tend to do in the West. That matches with what we have learned from Unrestricted Warfare:

“…the new principles of war are no longer ‘using armed force to compel the enemy to submit to one’s will,’ but rather are ‘using all means, including armed force or non-armed  force, military and non-military, and lethal and non-lethal to compel the enemy to accept one’s interests.’”

Now, when you add this to thoughts from Gordon Chang in 2010, you can see the serious problem we potentially face:

Opinion: Is China Dreaming of Global Dominance?

 by Gordon G. Chang, March 5th, 2010

It has been three years since the “flash crash” dropped the stock market.

Today’s anniversary is remembered by anyone who sat through those frightening minutes. Here is an interview by Rick Santelli and the opening comments from a CNBC article marking the date:

A new report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, demonstrates exactly why the global conflict for power really is, at its heart, an economic war. [Or, as Bill Clinton might say,  "It's the Economy, Stupid."]

China’s Military and the U.S.-Japan Alliance in 2030: A Strategic Net Assessment,

outlines a likely competition between China and the United States over the next 15-20 years.

The report was released 3 May and has already received substantive praise. Here are a few examples:

“The Asia century is well under way, and with it the emerging challenges of a region in transition…. Any sound future policy will require a thorough assessment of China’s evolving military and foreign security capabilities and of the capacity and willingness of Tokyo and Washington to sustain their historic cooperation. There are no guarantees that the future will resemble the recent past, and the best approaches for continued deterrence credibility and regional stability will require careful consideration and thoughtful analysis.

To this end, the Carnegie Endowment has offered up an extraordinary contribution: China’s Military and the U.S.-Japan Alliance in 2030: A Strategic Net Assessment. The future security and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region may very well be defined by the content of this assessment. But one thing is certain: the United States and Japan must recognize that in the future, status quo thinking is unlikely to guarantee a stable security environment that serves the long-term interests of the bilateral relationship or the region.”

—Governor Jon Huntsman Jr., former ambassador to China and former governor of Utah

“Michael Swaine and his co-authors have done an admirable job of thinking through the complex interactions of the U.S.-Japan-China relationship in the future. Using scenarios and trend projections, they go beyond simple predictions to examine the complex interactions of different developments and reactions among the three countries and different groups within them. While I do not agree with specific military and policy judgments in all the scenarios, I strongly endorse the effort to examine potential developments along with likely and possible reactions and counterreactions. The triangular interactive relations among these great Asian powers will determine both the overall future of the region and much of the futures of each of the individual countries.”

—Admiral Dennis Blair (U.S. Navy, retired), former director of national intelligence and former commander of the U.S. Pacific Command

“The U.S.-Japan alliance has long been crucial to the military balance in the Western Pacific. The balance of power in the region is now shifting toward China, and tensions between Asian states are rising concomitantly. Current trends suggest that the United States and Japan will not find it easy to sustain immunity from coercion as they seek to preserve stability, secure their national interests, and manage crises in the region over the coming years. This study is a remarkably timely, thoughtful, and meticulous examination of the drivers and choices the allies will face through 2030. It illuminates probable shifts in the strategic landscape of northeast Asia, their consequences, and the policy and resource allocation choices they pose. In this strategic net assessment, the scholars Carnegie assembled have given decision makers in Tokyo and Washington a uniquely insightful and thought-provoking policy-planning tool.”

—Ambassador Chas W. Freeman Jr. (U.S. Foreign Service, retired), former assistant secretary of defense

“There is nothing out there like this—a very important piece of work…. This is an elegantly framed study that systematically assesses the postures of China, Japan, and the United States and treats the dynamics between them. Obviously, this is tough to execute, but the authors have done an outstanding job. The report addresses a critical subject and offers empirically based suggestions…. There is nothing like it in terms of looking at the interactions between states to produce a set of possible future regional dynamics.”

—Eric Heginbotham, senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation

Now, what does the report conclude?

Basically, the report outlines three possible scenarios that will determine the relative role of the United States and China with Japan responding to the changes of both. From WIRED Magazine:

“Over the next 15-20 years, the U.S. and China are headed for a confrontation in the western Pacific, with Japan caught in the middle. And China, currently the underdog, could very well come out on top. That’s the unnerving conclusion of a new report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.”

The nightmare scenario for U.S. interests is listed first:

SCENARIO ONE:  CHINA WINS

 “China’s 10-percent annual economic growth continues unabated . . . The People’s Liberation Army enjoys year after year of elevated spending. Its homegrown ships, planes and missiles get better and better alongside improving Chinese military doctrine, leadership and training . . . the United States succumbs to its own internal problems. Economic growth slows to just 1.5 percent per year, leading to ‘enormous downward pressures on U.S. defense spending and U.S. military deployments in Asia.’”

The hopeful (at least for America) is listed next:

SCENARIO TWO:  AMERICA WINS

 “The opposite extreme is an era of substantially increased U.S. presence in the western Pacific . . . But this rosy scenario counts on a big boost in U.S. military spending, amounting to a full four percent of GDP — an assumption that itself hinges on a rapid economic recovery from today’s depressed levels plus a sustained high birth rate. In addition to more spending, the “America-wins” future assumes ideal outcomes across a wide range of military initiatives. The F-35 fighter and the new stealth bomber come in on time and on budget — and they both work as advertised. A U.S. plan to expand its naval fleet also proceeds without a hitch.”

The final scenario is described as realistically the best America could hope for:

SCENARIO THREE:  MIDDLE GROUND

“So which scenario is probable? America does not collapse back into economic crisis but neither does yearly growth reach the three-percent threshold policymakers desperately hope for. China also enjoys moderate economic expansion sustaining continued improvement of its air, sea, land, space and cyber forces . . . This version of the western Pacific circa 2030 is also probably the best that anyone in Washington should hope for, given economic, cultural and strategic realities.”

You can find the entire report as well as an Executive Summary here:
http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/05/03/china-s-military-and-u.s.-japan

Now, let the three scenarios sink in a bit.

The only real difference between U.S. Success and Failure is almost exclusively dependent on American economic strength. Is there any wonder as to why the People’s Liberation Army in China has identified Economic Warfare as the most important form of warfare in the 21st Century? This is the clear conclusion of Unrestricted Warfare (published by the PLA in 1999 and later supported in an official journal of the Communist Party in December 2010).

It is essential to understand that the very same military strategy and doctrine that undergirds cyber hacking is rooted explicitly in the Unrestricted Warfare approach. It would be foolish to accept that the Chinese PLA is hacking our computer systems without also acknowledging their efforts to undermine our financial markets or target our currency.

From Unrestricted Warfare:

“As we see it, a single man-made stock market crash, a single computer virus invasion, or a single rumor or scandal that results in a fluctuation in the enemy country’s exchange rates…can all be included in the ranks of new-concept weapons.”

“Financial Warfare will undoubtedly be an entry in 21st Century military jargon. The main protagonist in this section of the history book will not be a statesman or military strategist; rather it will be George Soros.”

“However, by using the combination method, a completely different scenario and game can occur: if the attacking side secretly (or quietly) musters large amounts of capital without the enemy nation being aware of this at all and launches a sneak attack against its financial markets, then after causing a financial crisis, buries a computer virus and hacker detachment in the opponent’s computer system in advance, while at the same time carrying out a network attack against the enemy so that the civilian electricity network, traffic dispatching network, financial transaction network, telephone communications network, and mass media network are completely paralyzed, this will cause the enemy nation to fall into social panic, street riots, and a political crisis.”

We have been preaching this in Washington for nearly five years. Unfortunately, despite this stark reality, most inside our defense and intelligence establishment remain wholly ignorant of the extraordinary threat of Economic Warfare. Sadly, those who understand the markets and economy can’t even begin to imagine that we are in an economic war. They naively tend to believe that all global economic players are solely focused on monetary gain and have some kind of transnational interests. Our efforts have been to cross-pollinate the disciplines before it is too late.

Fortunately, there are a few who have read and understood the Unrestricted Warfare playbook. One is retired Lt. Colonel Timothy Thomas in the U.S. Army’s Military Studies Office. He asked the critical question in a Wall Street Journal interview, Why Did We Wait So Long to acknowledge the threat?

We can only hope that the Carnegie Institute report conclusions will be as obvious to policymakers as they are to us. The future of American defense hinges directly on whether or not we can survive the global economic war already underway.

When the two PLA Colonels wrote Unrestricted Warfare in 1999, they listed “a single man-made stock market crash” as one of three specific new-concept weapons for the 21st Century. They called it financial warfare.

We have been warning about market manipulation for several years, first in our report for the Department of Defense and then in the New York Times Best-Seller, Secret Weapon. Yet, most in the intelligence and defense community know little about the financial markets. And, those who understand the markets generally know little about defense. Unfortunately, our enemies have studied both.

This week, we saw a hacked Twitter account used as a weapon resulting in a mini flash crash for stocks. Even as the market recovered in minutes, estimates are that there was something like $150 or $200 billion lost even if only briefly. We mentioned this in an earlier post.

While any human could clearly see that the White House was not bombed as the hacked tweets claimed, computer algorithms that monitor social media sites could not tell the difference. As a result, massive sell programs began and other high-frequency algorithms picked up on it.

The Syrian Electronic Army claims that they were the source of the false tweet. It was more than an April Fool’s Joke. They sent a message and investors were hurt. While most long term shareholders didn’t suffer loss as stock prices rebound, some had “stop-loss” orders to sell if their holdings dropped below a certain level. From The Week:

AP Twitter hack by Syrian group causes £90bn US market slump

‘Flash crash’ caused by report that Obama injured in White House explosion

LAST UPDATED AT 11:38 ON WED 24 APR 2013

A HOAX tweet claiming President Obama had been injured in a White House explosion wiped more than £90billion off the stock market in a matter of seconds last night . . .

But while the stock markets bounced back once it became clear the reports were false, the denials could not prevent “momentary chaos” in a world where “super-high-speed computer trades dominate the market”, the Washington Post notes.

As the Daily Telegraph‘s Willard Foxton writes, the incident demonstrates the “potential to hack a news organisation’s twitter feed and then make a killing off a short”. Any cleverly timed attack could be worth billions.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/business/52664/ap-twitter-hack-obama-injured-syrian-group-market-drop#ixzz2RWvNmm8X

This was not a surprise for anyone paying attention. Two years ago there were warnings that a bad tweet could hammer stocks. From Huffington Post:

Imagine a damaging rumor about a company that you own shares in is posted on Twitter. Algorithms monitoring social media feeds to gauge market sentiment and act upon news could instantaneously trade billions of dollars worth of these shares, causing the value to plummet. The rumor is entirely untrue but, in the time it takes for an explanation to be published by the company, the damage is done. The stock never fully recovers because the prevailing attitude of the day seems to be “where there is smoke there is fire.”

We have more questions than answers at this time. What was the ultimate motivation behind this? Was someone looking to buy shares on the dip? Were they hoping to profit from the decline? Or, were they merely attempting to cause financial mayhem and decrease confidence in the markets? Was someone testing weapons capabilities?

We are very concerned that this incident will pass without any real investigation or response. From Money Morning:

Why the Twitter Flash Crash Should Make You Angry

By DAVID ZEILER, Associate Editor, Money Morning  April 25, 2013

Twitter Flash Crash is a Red Flag for Regulators

Obviously, dealing with the HFT issue is a job for our market regulators – primarily the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Unfortunately, the SEC did nothing in the wake of the 2010 flash crash and has ignored other evidence of harm to the markets.

So while one would think the Twitter flash crash would get the SEC’s attention, history shows that when it comes to HFT the agency is sleeping on the job.

And while the 2010 incident and this week’s Twitter flash crash grabbed headlines, small-scale HFT-caused flash crashes are alarmingly common.

Active traders say there are at least a dozen “mini-flash crashes” every day – “mini” because they affect just one stock rather than the whole market.

But the mini flash crashes often affect major stocks such as Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) Aon plc (NYSE: AON) and Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A, BRK.B). In fact, Google Inc. (Nasdaq: GOOG) suffered a mini-flash crash on Monday, dropping 3.1% – and recovering – in a matter of seconds.

No one can deny that this electronic hacking was a financial terror attack. It simply was. What will we do about it?

On February 19th, we posted about how a Muslim preacher was urging followers to take advantage of the welfare system to fund jihad. This happened both in the United Kingdom and Australia:

Financial Jihad via Welfare?

There has been outrage that some have viewed our generous welfare systems in Western Economies as a means to fund Jihad. There are many legitimate welfare recipients who are greatly benefited by a little assistance. But using the money for Jihad is a serious problem. Even worse, if a sufficient number abuse the system, they could overwhelm it and bankrupt the generous host. Some call this the Cloward-Piven strategy. Has it been adopted by Jihadists?

Take a look at that post, the articles and the videos.

Now, it appears that our Boston Bombers may have taken such advice to heart.  According to press reports:

Printed from: Boston Herald (http://bostonherald.com)

---

We had a posting last month that generated tremendous debate on Facebook. A few said we were simply fear mongering. The role of this Blog, however, is to lay out the facts and some of those facts are frightful. This is the case when we discuss EMPs in light of developments by North Korea, Iran, and others. Our goal is to inform rather than frighten. Take this information for what it is worth. We are simply reposting the views of colleagues dedicated to protecting America. An EMP weapon, as described below is not intended to directly kill individuals. In fact, the direct casualties would be virtually nonexistent. Rather, the attack would be designed against our economy and infrastructure, not dissimilar to a massive computer hacking designed to shut down the Internet….only worse.

For background, you can view this video:

The information comes from Lt. General Daniel Graham and Ambassador Henry Cooper, both experts on missile defense who advised and worked with President Ronald Reagan. It is very concerning that their view on how an EMP might be used as a threat against America matches with the development and rhetoric of both North Korea and Iran. We are not making claim that there will be an EMP attack, but we have spoken with top people in the current Administration as well as the larger defense and intelligence establishment who have validated that this is a serious issue and risk. Fortunately, some have been working to address the risk.

To read the latest posting by High Frontier:

April 24, 2013 – No Monkey Business – Shut the Back Door!

For those who doubt that there can be efforts to manipulate the stock market, consider that yesterday Google dropped 3% suddenly without explanation. Today, the whole market dropped a full 1% in an instant after a fake AP tweet about a terror attack on the White House was sent.

Do not doubt that there is a connection between terror and markets. Neither should you doubt that there are some who are attempting to profit through market manipulations. Learn more at Secret Weapon.

UPDATE:  After posting the English Translation of a German article late on a Sunday night, we were sent the original article as it appeared on Financial Sense. Here is the original (untranslated) version. We’ve kept the translated version in place for your reference. It is pretty amazing how this information goes around the world. Many thanks to the German translator/publisher who brought this to our attention. And much appreciation to friend Jeff Nyquist who brought our book Secret Weapon out in his interview with a former top KGB advisor.

Here is the original link and untranslated article:

http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/jr-nyquist/why-trading-with-russia-china-is-stupid

Why Trading with Russia and China Is Stupid

Last week I wrote about Boris Berezovsky, the Russian billionaire whose death [1] was being investigated by British authorities. In order to understand Berezovsky’s career as the godfather of Russian capitalism, I asked former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy about Berezovsky’s background. Without the slightest hesitation, he said that Berezovsky was a KGB agent who got his wealth from the Communist Party Soviet Union. He added that all the Russian oligarchs had been created in the same manner. To fully grasp the significance of this revelation, readers should imagine what it would signify if every single American billionaire had been set up in business by the FBI, using money taken from the Democratic Party. What kind of capitalism would be established on this basis? And a further question: what kind of trade system is so established?

Continuing my interview of last week, I put these and other questions to Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy, who once worked as a top advisor to the Soviet KGB’s Directorate “T”. According to Preobrazhenskiy, “Russia is not a country of trade. Imperial Russia before 1917 was such a country. The current Russia and USSR, to which she is an inheritor, is a country of espionage.”

I asked Preobrazhenskiy whether he has shared these insights with U.S. policy-makers. “Oh no,” he said with a laugh. “They run from my opinions.” And why does a former KGB officer (who knows the truth of these things firsthand) get the cold shoulder from those he is trying to warn? The West, says Preobrazhenskiy, is the prisoner of its own wishful thinking. “The Myth that the Cold War has ended is the greatest delusion of the West,” he explained. “Let us ask a simple question: When did the Cold War finish – what date? When the armistice agreement was signed? And who admitted defeat?” he asked with a hint of sarcasm.

“Many believe that the Soviet Union was defeated,” the former KGB officer continued. “But maybe it has only gotten smaller. In fact, I do not see a large difference between the current Russia and the Soviet Union. Especially because some of its former republics – independent on paper – are still governed by the Kremlin; and if you try to approach any passerby on the Russian street and ask him if the Cold War is finished, he will tell you that it is not so, and that the U.S. is running the Cold War against Russia. He knows it from Russian state propaganda.”

Considering researcher Kevin E. Freeman’s theory [2] that America’s economy has been intentionally sabotaged by “rogue elements in Communist China and Russia,” I asked about Russian and Chinese efforts to undermine the U.S. economy through trade. “It is impossible to undermine such a great country as the USA through trade,” said Preobrazhenskiy. “But it is possible to be done through espionage, sabotage and other kinds of secret activities. Both Russia and China know America’s vulnerabilities, and they are exploiting them as much as they can.”

But why would Russia and China do this?

“The same question is asked by the counterintelligence heads of Britain and Germany,” replied the former KGB officer. “In their interviews I feel a sincere misunderstanding: ‘Why are Russian spies distracting us from more important work against Chinese spies and Muslim terrorists? Don’t the Russians know that the Cold War has ended?’ I only grin hearing all this because Russia has very good relations both with the Muslims and the Chinese. There is no wonder that the new President of China, Xi Jinping, made his first visit not to the United States, but to Russia; and Putin has rejected the invitation to come to the United States and made his first visit to Belarus, thus demonstrating the idea of reconstructing the USSR. You are also wondering on what ideological basis Russia is spying against American now. It is done on the basis of anti-Americanism. They now see their goal as depriving the U.S. of its global power status. The basis of this anti-Americanism is the ideology of Eurasianism, invented by the NKVD in the 1920s. Now it has become the official ideology of Russia. It proclaims opposition against America on the basis of friendship with Iran and China.”

I asked the former KGB officer about Russia’s commitment to communism. Is communism really dead? And has capitalism really triumphed?

“Russia has never renounced communism!” Preobrazhenskiy exclaimed. “There is no official document where the Russian authorities would have said, ‘We renounce communism and condemn it.’ There was, of course, an attempt to force the renunciation of communism in 1992, when the court case against the Soviet Communist Party began. But very soon a powerful communist lobby crushed it. And this is not all, as I have learned from Vladimir Bukovsky. The trial of communism was terminated at the request of the West, since the West was so deeply involved in flirting with Soviet communism that if it became publicly known it would have caused a scandal. “

I asked if the continuance of communist power in Russia explained Moscow’s willingness to bury the last Tsar while refusing to bury Lenin.

“Russia’s seeming turn away from communism was nothing but a cosmetic operation,” noted Preobrazhenskiy. “The communists have now repainted themselves as democrats; and besides, now many tourists from communist China are arriving at Moscow – and first of all they rush to see Lenin’s body. Some of them say it is the main point of their coming to Moscow. I have seen huge crowds near Lenin’s tomb. How is it possible to bury Lenin after all this? Oh, how naïve the West is!”

Since Preobrazhenskiy worked for the KGB in the Far East recruiting Chinese and Japanese agents, I couldn’t help asking about a possible military alliance between Russia and China. To this he immediately replied, “This alliance already exists.” I asked on what basis this alliance was formed, given the idea that Russia and China were natural rivals.

“China is an ideological enemy of America,” he said. “It can’t be anything except an adversary. On the other hand, both Russia and China enjoy ideological integrity: devotion to communism and hatred of America. Chinese communists understand that the Russians have to put on a mask of democracy before the naïve West; but before China they don’t need this mask and unmask themselves. Both countries do not publicly declare their anti-American alliance. It is a part of their joint activity of deceiving America. You see, ideological integrity is a sufficient frame for such an alliance. As it is not public, it mostly concerns cooperation in some secret spheres. It is intelligence, first of all, in which they cooperate. I am sure there is some agreement between the intelligence services of both Russia and China for undermining America, but it is kept secret.”

There are some readers who will become angry at reading Preobrazhenskiy’s testimony. But Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy is not alone in making these statements. Others from his world have defected and risked their lives to warn Americans. Yet the story is always the same. Americans don’t want to listen to warning messages. It is our determination, as a people, to believe what is convenient and to accept enemy-generated propaganda about ourselves. We want to invest in Russia and China. We want to believe that capitalism has triumphed. But capitalism is dying right here, right now, on American soil. How do we explain this? Have we properly accounted for what is happening? Our long prosperity has spoiled us. Our wealth has inoculated us from the truth. We have now become a people who prefer pleasant lies to unpleasant truths. We had better wake up. There isn’t much time left.

About JR Nyquist

JR Nyquist

jrnyquist @ aol.com
http://www.jrnyquist.com

TRANSLATED POST AS PUBLISHED APRIL 21, 2013 @ 20:30:

An interesting article and interview, written in German by Jeff Nyquist appeared today at blu-News:

http://www.blu-news.eu/2013/04/21/ist-der-kalte-krieg-wirklich-beendet/

Here are a few of our thoughts:

First, we don’t speak German so we have to rely on translation software so the rendering may or may not be accurate. Second, we respect Jeff Nyquist but do not know his interview subject other than what is shared. Therefore, we are not attempting to do anything more than share with you what was written. We are not suggesting whether or not his thoughts accurately reflect geopolitical reality. We do note with particular interest, however, the section of questions regarding our book Secret Weapon and the implications therein. It does appear that Jeff’s interview subject clearly believes that the Russians, Chinese, and Islamists are waging an economic war against the United States. Finally, other than making the pertinent sections bold, we did nothing to adjust the final product. We even left the middle initial “E” for Kevin Freeman that the translate software used when his actual middle initial is “D.”

Applying Google Translate to the article, we come up with the following:

THE COLD WAR IS REALLY DONE?

The opinion of others opinion titles – 21 April 2013
Jeff Nyquist: Why you should not trade with Russia and China
Is the Cold War really over?

(Photo: DoD photo, source: Wikipedia; rights; CC license; Original: See link)

Jeff Nyquist talks with Konstantin Preobrazhensky Georgiyevich. Preobrazhensky is a former KGB officer, an intelligence expert and author of several books and numerous articles on the Russian secret police.

Recently I wrote an article about Boris Berezovsky, the Russian billionaire whose cause of death was investigated by the British authorities. To better understand Berezovsky’s career as a godfather of Russian capitalism, I asked the former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky after Berezovsky background. Without hesitation he said that Berezovsky was a KGB agent who had been his fortune by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He added that all the Russian oligarchs were created in the same way. Should be to understand the significance of this revelation fully imagine what it would be if every American billionaire had come by the FBI into business with money from the Democratic Party. What kind of capitalism would have been established on this basis? And another question: what kind of trading system would have issued it?

In continuation of my interview I asked Preobrazhenski Constantine, who had previously worked as a senior consultant for the Directorate T of the Soviet KGB, these and other questions. According Preobrazhensky is “Russia no trading partners. Tsarist Russia before 1917 was one such country. The USSR and its successor, the current Russia is a land of espionage. ”

The ignorance of Western intelligence

Preobrazhensky I asked if he had discussed this information with U.S. officials. “Oh no,” he replied, laughing, “they run away from my messages.” But why is a former KGB officer (of the truth about these machinations firsthand knows) of those he tries to warn the cold shoulder shown? The West, as Preobrazhensky is trapped in his own wishful thinking. He said, “the myth that the Cold War is finished is the biggest illusion of the West”. “Let us imagine a simple question: When the Cold War was over – which day? When was the armistice signed? And who conceded his defeat on? “It said this with a trace of sarcasm.

The former KGB officer continued: “Many believe that the Soviet Union was defeated. But maybe she’s just become a little smaller. In fact, I do not see any big difference between the current Russia and the Soviet Union. Especially considering the fact that some of its former republics – that are independent on paper – are still ruled by the Kremlin. And if some people on the street in Russia asks if the Cold War had finished, he will reply that this is not the case and that the U.S. is waging a cold war against Russia. He has made the Russian state propaganda. ”

Given the revelation of Kevin E. Freeman, that the American economy was deliberately sabotaged by enemy forces from China and Russia, I asked about the Russian and Chinese attempts to undermine the American economy through trade. Preobrazhensky replied “it is impossible to undermine such a big country like the U.S. through trade. But it is possible through espionage, sabotage and other types of covert operations. Both Russia and China know the weaknesses of America and they use it as best they can. “

But why should Russia and China do that?

“The same question myself and the leaders of the counterintelligence Britain and Germany,” said the former KGB officer. “In their interviews, I feel a big misunderstanding, why distract us from the more important Russian spies working against Chinese spies and Islamist terrorists from? Do not know because the Russians that the Cold War is over? ‘I can only laugh when I hear all this, because Russia has very good relationships with both the Islamists and the Chinese. It is no coincidence that the new Chinese President Xi Jinping his first state visit did not in the U.S., but in Russia, and Putin has rejected the invitation to come to the United States and first Belarus visited to demonstrate the restoration of the USSR. You may ask, to which Russia operates its ideological base current espionage against America. This happens on the basis of anti-Americanism. Their goal is to overthrow the United States as a world power now. The basis of this anti-Americanism is the Eurasian ideology, which was invented by the NKVD in the 1920s. This has become the official ideology of Russia. It urges the opposition to America on the basis of friendship with Iran and China.”

I asked the former KGB officer by Russia’s relationship to communism. Is communism really dead? And the market economy has really won?

Preobrazhensky said, “Russia has never renounced communism! There is no single official document in which the Russian authorities had said that we disavow communism and condemn him. ‘ Of course there was an attempt in 1992 to condemn communism, as the trial of the CPSU began. But that was quickly suppressed by a powerful communist lobby. And as I have learned from Vladimir Bukovsky is not all. The case against communism was discontinued at the request of the West, because the West was so deeply involved in the cooperation with the Soviet communism, that it would have caused a scandal when it would become public knowledge. ”

I asked if the continuity of Communist power in Russia, the Moscow declared readiness, though to bury the last Tsar, but not Lenin.

“Russia’s apparent shift away from communism was nothing more than a cosmetic surgery,” said Preobrazhensky. “The Communists have now masquerading as Democrats and also many tourists now come from Communist China to Moscow and the first thing they want to see Lenin’s body. Some of them say that this is the main point of their trip to Moscow. I saw huge crowds in front of Lenin’s mausoleum. How can you as Lenin buried? Oh, how naive the West is! ”

The “Communist clenched fist”

Since Preobrazhensky was used by the KGB in the Far East to recruit Chinese and Japanese agents, I asked him about a possible military alliance between Russia and China. He replied immediately: “This alliance already exists.” I asked on what basis this alliance was closed because supposedly are Russia and China as rivals.

“China is an ideological enemy of America,” he said. “It may be nothing more than an enemy. On the other hand, Russia and China join ideological similarities: both are committed to communism and both hate America. The Chinese Communists know that the Russians must be presented to the naive west as Democrats, but against China they do not need this mask and show openly. Both countries declare their anti-Americanism, not public. It is part of their joint activities to deceive America.

As you can see there are enough similarities for such an ideological alliance. And since it is not public, cooperation consists mainly of secret areas. Primarily, the two countries are working together secret service. I am sure that there are arrangements between Russia and China to undermine America, but it is kept secret. ”

Preobrazhenskys probably will not please some readers report. But Konstantin Preobrazhensky is not alone with these statements. Other defectors from his country have risked their lives to warn the West. But the story is always the same. The West wants to hear any warning messages. We as a people are determined to believe in that which is comfortable and fall for the propaganda that puts the enemy above us in circulation. We want to invest in Russia and China. We want to believe that the market economy has prevailed. But the market economy is dying, here and now on American soil. How can we explain that? Do we really understand what is happening here? Our many years of prosperity has spoiled us. Our wealth has made us immune to the truth. We have become a nation that gives preference lies pleasant to unpleasant truths. We should better wake up. There is not much time.

Sources:

Russian Capitalism and the Death of Boris Berezovksy – Financial Sense, March 25, 2013

Secret Weapon by Kevin Freeman

Author info:

Jeff Nyquist is a recognized expert on the Soviet long-range strategy and commented for many years the world political events against the background of continuing communist threat. He runs the website www.jrnyquist.com that educates on the strategic interaction between the world powers and shows that Russia and China are working on a way to the West, which is not understood by the Western elites.