Archive | November 17th, 2018

Saudi Zio-Wahhabi Nudged Naziyahu to Go to War


Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman

Saudi Zio-Wahhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman

Saudi Zio-Wahhabi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman attempted to persuade Zionist Prime Minister Benjamin Naziyahu to start a conflict with Hamas in Gaza as part of a plan to divert attention from the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, sources inside Saudi Arabia said.

A war in Gaza was among a range of measures and scenarios proposed by an emergency task force set up to counter increasingly damaging leaks about Khashoggi’s murder coming from Turkish authorities, according to sources with knowledge of the group’s activities, the sources told the Middle East Eye.

The task force, which is composed of officials from the royal court, the foreign and defense ministries, and the intelligence service, briefs the crown prince every six hours, according to the report.

It advised bin Salman that a war in Gaza would distract Trump’s attention and refocus Washington’s attention on the role Saudi Arabia plays in bolstering Zionist strategic interests.

It also advised bin Salman to “neutralize Turkey by all means” – including attempts to bribe Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan with offers to buy Turkish arms and statements by the crown prince attempting to shore up relations between Riyadh and Ankara.

In comments made at last month’s Future Investment Initiative, bin Salman claimed Khashoggi’s murder was being used to drive a wedge between Saudi Arabia and Turkey. He said that would not happen “as long as there is a king called King Salman bin Abdelaziz and a crown prince called Mohammad bin Salman in Saudi Arabia”.

Khashoggi was brutally killed in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, in an operation which Turkish authorities believe was carried out by a hit squad whose suspected members contained several members of bin Salman’s personal bodyguards.

Saudi Zio-Wahhabi officials have denied that the crown prince has “any knowledge whatsoever” of Khashoggi’s killing.

Jamal Khashoggi
Jamal Khashoggi

Some of the task force’s other recommendations were leaked to a close confidant of bin Salman, Turki Aldakhil, the general manager of the Al Arabiya news channel. He revealed “more than 30 potential measures” that Riyadh could take if Washington imposed sanctions.

He said the kingdom was capable of doubling or tripling the price of oil, of offering Russia a military base in the north of the country, and of turning to both Russia and China as its main arms suppliers.

Aldakhil later dismissed these threats “as his ideas only”, but his original article on the Al Arabiya website sources these threats to “decision-making circles within the kingdom”. This, according to the Middle East Eye, is the task force set up to advise bin Salman.

Saudi Arabia and the Zionist regime are considered to have increasingly close secret ties, driven by their shared hostility to Iran, and bin Salman has been a key player in efforts to sell Trump’s “deal of the century” peace plan for ”Israel” and Palestine to regional leaders.

Speaking to the BBC earlier this year, Naziyahu said that Israel and some Arab nations were going through a process of “subterranean normalization”.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Gaza, Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Saudi Zio-Wahhabi Nudged Naziyahu to Go to War

From the BALFOUR DECLARATION to the Holocaust: How the Zionist Project Won Palestine


Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem, Sr

Official British events to mark the centennary of the Balfour Declaration could be seen as questionable, to say the least.

Theresa May’s commitment to the commemorations were promised to Benjamin Netanyahu some time ago – regardless of the fact that the it will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of many or that we’re talking about one of the most divisive documents in modern history.

Both the critics and supporters of Israel are guilty of propagating historical illiteracy about the origins and meaning of Zionism.

Some anti-Israel activists see Zionism in super-simplistic terms as a source of all evil or as a Nazi-style ideaology, while its defenders demonise or shut down anyone – Jewish or non-Jewish – who raises any questions.

The reality and the real history isn’t anything like as simple as either of those positions – real history never is.

There is, even now, a common misperception that the modern State of Israel was created in Palestine entirely as a reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust: that what was inflicted upon the Jews of Europe by the Nazis and fascists was the justification for creating the ‘Jewish Homeland’ – essentially a sanctuary or safe space for a horrifically persecuted people.

This is somewhat true, from a certain perspective.

And nothing in this article is questioning the reality that Israel provided a very real sanctuary for Jews after the Holocaust. And, to be clear, nothing in this article is questioning the legitimacy of Israel as a state in this present period of time (even if we might question many of its modern actions – or indeed how it came about in the first place).

It is difficult to argue against the fact that, after the events of World War II, a Jewish State became a necessity.

And I personally wouldn’t have perceived a problem with it if we wanted to celebrate, say, the official creation of the State of Israel in 1948. That would make some sense: a commemoration of the recognition of a new, democratic state for a people who suffered immense persecution, particularly in the aftermath of the horrors of World War II.

But that’s not what is being commemorated.

What we’re commemorating instead is literally the signing of an agreement by the British state in 1917 – twenty years or so before the inhuman crimes of Nazi Germany – to secure an already-populated land for controlled immigration by a specific religious group with a territorial claim based on supposed Biblical justification.

What this article is questioning is the very tidy and selective manner in which the story of the Zionist project – and particularly the history from the Balfour Declaration in 1917, through to the Holocaust during the Second World War, and eventually the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948 – has generally been portrayed for decades.

There’s no doubt that the inhumanity of the Holocaust was what allowed the creation of Israel to be fully and finally legitimated and even necessary. However, the project to acquire that land for the so-called Jewish State – Zionism – preceded the Holocaust by decades and was a programme long in the making. It’s official advent was the British state’s issuing of the Balfour Declaration in 1917.

What is often ommitted from the modern, mainstream view is how this agreement came about, how it related to both the First and Second World Wars and also to the horrors of the Holocaust; and what’s even more ommitted is how Zionist leaders and advocates saw the Holocaust and saw the millions of European Jews – which is one of the most disturbing aspects of this whole subject.

And to be very clear (because there is so much misinterpretation or deliberate skewing that goes on), any reference to ‘Zionists’ or to ‘Zionism’ in this article is not a reference to ‘Jews’, neither is it a reference to the general population of Israel or to the general flow of people who migrated into Palestine.

This isn’t an article about religion or about race – but only about politics, deal-making, propaganda and history.

And it also isn’t an article about anything that has happened after 1948 – but only what happened before it.

This is an attempt at an unbiased (I hope) examination of elements of the Zionist story that most mainstream narratives usually ignore. And, be clear, this is written from the perspective of someone who supports the existence of the modern State of Israel (within pre-1967 borders): but, nevertheless, finds the history of the Zionist project – and the role of the Balfour Declaration – unsettling.

There is no reference here to conspiracy theory lore or revisionist history. There’s no reference here to the fabled Protocols of the Elders of Zion or any thoughts about Hitler having been a Zionist agent. And most of all, no reference to or insinuation of a ‘Jewish Conspiracy’ – because I don’t believe such a thing exists.

Also, when I use the term ‘Zionist’ here, I am generally referring to Zionist organisations and operatives who were active at the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and the immediate couple of decades after this – and not necessarily to anyone who generally (for whichever reason) self-identifies as a ‘Zionist’ today.

You might notice that I keep putting in these disclaimers or clarifications – this highlights just how much of a mine-field this entire subject has been turned into, where anyone like myself (who doesn’t have an anti-Semitic bone in my body) has to carefully navigate these sensitive or toxic terms to make sure things aren’t being misunderstood.

As I’ve touched on before – and will touch on again shortly – this mine-field has been laid deliberately to make it very difficult for people to talk about anything related to Israel or ‘Zionism’ without potentially coming across like an anti-Semite. Even the term ‘Zionism’ is itself now really tricky, because it has been deliberately re-written to denote Israel as a population or even, increasingly, all Jews.

It was, originally, nothing of the sort.

The Balfour Declaration is widely seen as having been a massive misjudgement, made under questionable circumstances, and – to many – is also seen as incredibly divisive.

In fact, even later British governments were already questioning or even regretting the Balfour Declaration – to the extent that some felt duty-bound to honour an agreement that they didn’t necessarily even see the wisdom of.

Which raises the question of why the British government would even want to draw any more *attention* to it, let alone celebrate it.

Robert Fisk, writing in The Independent earlier this year, called it ‘the most mendacious, deceitful and hypocritical document in modern British history.’

At a time when even the EU and the Obama administration had recently issued sanctions against the Israeli government for allowing Zionist settlers’ continued demolition of Palestinian homes and villages and construction of illegal settlements in occupied territory, is it really an appropriate time to be celebrating a document that set decades of Middle-Eastern dysfunction into motion?

And, to be clear, we’re not talking about the establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948 and in the shadow of the Holocaust – we’re talking about two decades earlier; and at a time when the British state and other Colonial powers were carving up the Middle East like a roast chicken dinner.

On some level, we might not be surprised. Theresa May is, after all, a staunch Zionist and friend of the Israeli government and who, previously, helped change British law in order to make it impossible to prosecute Israeli war criminals.

The most excessive part is Mrs May’s feeling “pride” in the Balfour Declaration, rather than merely honouring it. It isn’t as if she’s merely acknowledging an important event in history – but actually talking about how proud she is of it a hundred years later, when even she (in all her capacity for misjudgements) surely understands how inappropriate it might seem to many for a British Prime Minister in 2017 to appear so zealous about a highly questionable agreement that even Winston Churchill was expressing grave doubts about just years after it was signed.

Is it genuine passion for Israel? Or is it a perpetual need for the British state to pander to Zionist organisations in 2017, just as it did in 1917?

Even a hundred years ago, however, the British state’s commitment to Zionist colonisation of Palestine had provoked a lot of opposition and sceptcism.

Major British diplomats such as Lord Curzon or Middle East experts such as Gertrude Bell and T.E Lawrence were critical of the idea of imposing a Jewish state onto an area that was already populated. Gandhi called it an “inhuman” policy.

And neither public nor government opinion was unanimous in its support for what was seen as an excessive commitment made by Britain to further the Zionist agenda. Winston Churchill, in a 1922 telegraph, is recorded to have written of “a growing movement of hostility against Zionist policy in Palestine,” adding that “it is increasingly difficult to meet the argument that it is unfair to ask the British taxpayer, already overwhelmed with taxation, to bear the cost of imposing on Palestine an unpopular policy.”

This is why Mrs May’s and Britain’s celebration of the Balfour Declaration is so odd: like an extraordinarily desperate doubling down on an idea that, even at the time, was being doubted, let alone a century later. You could even be passionately pro-Zionist and *still* understand that it’s probably not the best idea to overly celebrate the Balfour Declaration.

John Quigley, in his exhaustive article ‘Britain’s Secret Re-Assessment of the Balfour Declaration’, informs us that ‘Most British officials in the military administration that governed Palestine saw Britain’s support for Zionism as leading to no good.’

He writes, further into the extensive historical review, that ‘The British Cabinet could not ignore the reports of trouble in Palestine. It met on 18 August 1921, with Churchill present. The minutes of the meeting show that the possibility of renouncing the Balfour Declaration was discussed.’

In August 1921, in a memorandum to the Cabinet, Churchill warned that ‘The Zionist policy is profoundly unpopular with all except the Zionists… the whole situation should be reviewed by the Cabinet.’ Churchill himself was generally a supporter of the Zionist operation; but not so much so that he didn’t see that it was highly problematic and probably warranted serious re-evaluation.

And aside from this, the British pledge to the Zionists had in fact conflicted with promises it had also made to the Hashemite Arabs who had fought on Britain’s side in the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans.

On 8th March 1920, a Syrian state – that was to include Lebanon and Palestine – was declared by the General Syrian Congress and led by Faisal, son of Hussein (picture above) – the Hashemite Prince who had led the Arab Revolt in alliance with T.E Lawrence and the British and in whose name Damascus had been captured by the Arab army.

A number of British officials, including the renowned General Allenby (who had captured Jerusalem and whose campaign had benefited substantially from the Arab campaign under Faisal) had strongly advised the British government to recognise Faisal’s claim.

This would’ve meant the nullification of the Balfour Declaration.

It was a case of a particularly powerful or effective cabal managing to get its agenda through; aided in no small part by the chaos and uncertainty of World War I and its aftermath. Those who were, at the time, operating to facillitate the Zionist agenda were incredibly savvy, able to exert influence and pull strings in all the right places at all the right times.

This is arguably why the Zionist project succeeded where other interests failed.

For example, as mentioned already, the British government had also made promises to King Hussein of Mecca and the Hashemites, as well as promises to the Kurds – and in both those cases, the promises were not kept. In fact, both the Kurds and the Hashemite Arabs had fought and sacrificed lives on the side of the British during the war and yet still didn’t see their promises kept – whereas the Zionists were simply much better at persuading or coercing governments to adopt their interests.

The Arabs even had T.E Lawrence (of Arabia) – an international icon at the time – campaigning tirelessly for their cause, yet to no avail.

The Zionists, on the other hand, clearly knew how to win.

Lord Jacob Rothschild did an interview earlier this year, in which he spoke about the crucial role his ancestors played in the Balfour Declaration. The head of the powerful banking family told Times of Israel about how his family connected Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann to the British establishment and taught him how to “insert himself into British establishment life” in order to better push forward the Zionist agenda for Palestine.

For this matter, the involvement of the powerful Rothschild banking family in the Zionist project should not be underestimated. Says Rothschild, “it was the most incredible piece of opportunism.”

The prominent Jewish intellectual, Arthur Koestler, called it “one the most improbable political documents of all time.”

It it now much more widely understood that the British state’s commitment to Zionism was motivated in large part by Zionist lobbyists’ offer to use their influence in America to draw the United States into World War I – essentially in exchange for the Holy Land.

It is also well understood by now that some – though not all – of the violent anti-Semitism that emerged in Germany (particularly Hitler’s own hatred) was based on this perceived Zionist ‘betrayal’ of Germany in World War I: in essence, Hitler could blame political Zionists (somewhat rightly, arguably) and ‘Jews’ (wrongly, unarguably) for the problems Germany had been experiencing since the end of the First World War and the perceived ‘humiliation’ of the German people.

Aside from the genuine stream of vicious anti-Semitism that already existed across Europe, Hitler’s propaganda machine was able to turn a lot more of his own people against Jewish people on account of the role the Zionists were perceived to have played in Germany’s fate.

Whether or not Zionists were such a large part of why Germany lost the First World War is something we can question (there were undoubtedly combinations of different reasons, even if Zionist activity was one); but the point is that Hitler – correctly or incorrectly – wholly believed this to have been the case.

Alison Weir traces in her book, Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, how drafts of the Balfour Declaration went back and forth between Britain and the United States for some time before a final agreement was signed.

But what is particularly extraordinary to note is that it wasn’t a simple case of the Zionists coercing governments into particular actions, but that the different powers were in fact practically vying to align themselves with the Zionist agenda.

It could’ve just as easily been Germany that might’ve issued its own Balfour-type declaration – and had it done so, there might have been a different outcome to World War I (which, in turn, may have meant World War II might never have happened either).

John Quigley, in the aforementioned study, points out the extent to which allying with the Zionist movement was seen as a major prize in both the war and in propaganda terms, informing us that British officials were actually worried that Germany would issue a statement of support for the Zionists before Britain did. ‘The issue of wooing Jewry was clearly deemed to be of great importance by the German and Ottoman governments’, Quigley explains.

Chaim Weizmann – the chief Zionist petitioning the British government – himself evidently played to this state of mind, warning British officials that they should hurry about issuing their support for Zionism, as Germany was going to try to “influence Jewish opinion, especially in America and Russia, and utilise it in the interests of German propaganda…”

Quigley highlights in his exhaustive study that, in a cabinet meeting of 4th October 1917, Mr Balfour himself had warned that ‘the German government were making great efforts to capture the sympathy of the Zionist movement’.

In fact, Jewish communities – including the Zionist elements – had a strong presence in Germany and it would’ve made sense for Germany to have utilised this in their favour. The fact that Britain got there first – and that the British state was seen as having been enticed into it by Zionist agents – must’ve caused enormous resentment in Germany, particularly given the punishments that were inflicted on Germany by Britain, France and the others after the war (an entirely pointless war that was essentially fought between cousins who sent millions to die for no real purpose).

Most historians or experts on the period would probably argue that the Zionists’ impact on Germany’s loss of the war and subsequent suffering wasn’t anything like as big as some claim.

This is probably true. Though there is a longstanding counter-argument that says Germany was actually winning the war and was even offering to discuss peace terms with Britain and France at the time that the Americans, via Zionist influence in exchange for the Balfour Declaration, entered the war and the tide turned.

History is always tricky and the story changes depending on who’s perspective you’re looking from – what seems fair to say, however, is that if Hitler and the Nazis two decades later needed an easy scapegoat to pin all of Germany’s problems on, the Zionists had very much provided one.

And the price, in the end, wasn’t paid by the Zionists but by ordinary Jews.

This linking of the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and the Holocaust some two decades later isn’t spurious. In fact, they are arguably chapters in the same story.

Even at this stage in the programme when the Balfour Declaration was being issued, attitudes were evident – and statements being made – that are now very disturbing when you consider what would unfold in Germany and Europe two decades later in World War II.

For example, during the course of the negotiations, Rothschild-aligned Chaim Weizman – the first “Jewish statesman” and the man who’d done the most to ensure British support for Zionism – had said that “The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important”.

That’s the chief Zionist in Britain, saying “those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important.”

Weizman’s collaborator, Yitzhak Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation “One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe”.

This same attitude towards the millions of ordinary Jewish victims of Nazi Europe has been sustained, surprisingly, for decades. “Sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice the few in order to save the many,” said Moshe Sharett, a former Israeli Prime Minister, in 1958.

But in actual fact, the Zionist role in the Holocaust may have been even deeper than just a disturbingly casual attitude towards the ordinary Jewish victims – as we will come back to in a minute.

Theodore Herzl‘s (1860-1904: considered the founder of the Zionist ideaology) original justification for wanting to separate Jews from non-Jews was understandable – you could even argue it was justified at the time, as it stemmed from genuine and widespread anti-Semitism and persecution of Jewish communities in various countries.

Even then, however, other Jewish thinkers and writers opposed the idea of Zionism, arguing that segregating Jewish people off from the rest of the world wasn’t a way forward.

The problem, arguably, was how zealous and singleminded the movement’s agitators became. In fact, Herzl himself justified the claim to Palestine by telling the British (years before Weizmann and the Balfour Declaration) that a Jewish homeland in Palestine would act as a European base in the Middle East against the Arabs (even though there was no threat from ‘the Arabs’ at this time or any conflict).

When Zionism emerged as an idealogy in the late 1800s, Palestine was populated almost entirely by Muslim and Christian Arabs. And the vast majority of Jews around the world were not Zionists and did not identify with that agenda.

But from the very beginning, the Zionist school of thought had a low opinion of the majority of ordinary, integrated European Jews, and placed absolute priority on the acquisition of Palestine.

This is in fact a crucial dynamic to properly understand, both historically and in the present day. While Zionism is a political ideaology that isn’t and was never embraced by all Jewish people, part of the agenda of the Zionist movement was to contiually force or incite ordinary Jews into identifying religously or nationalistically with the Zionist identity and, at the same time, to encourage non-Jews to increasingly view Jews as ‘Zionists’ or to associate Jews with the idea of Israel.

This programme has been amplified tenfold since the official foundation of the State of Israel in 1948 and has clearly worked – in the present day, most people have been conditioned to associate Jews automatically with Israel. And even the term ‘Zionism’ has been mistakenly (deliberately) conflated with Jews, despite the fact that many of the most ardent opponents or critics of Zionism are Jewish people.

Former ITN news reporter Alan Hart’s book, Zionism – The Real Enemy of the Jews, also examines this problem somewhat.

But there’s nothing new in this.

There were, from the very earliest days of the Zionist agenda, outspoken Jewish voices who entirely opposed that ideaology – and this remains the case today.

This in particular is a reason I personally always look to cite specifically Jewish criticism where possible – partly because I don’t ever want to quote actual anti-Semites, and partly to help us combat the horrible and widespread anti-Jewish hate-speech that pervades the Internet and to help dismantle the racist myth of the “Jewish Conspiracy” or the insidious “All Jews are in it together” line of propaganda that thrives on too many genuinely anti-Semitic platforms.

I’ve covered this a few times here before, in regard to how a deliberate, calculated policy has been undertaken to forcibly identify Jewish people with Zionism or pressure Jewish people into fixating their sense of identity onto Israel, while simultaneously raising the anti-Semitism card against anyone who criticises Zionism or right-wing nationalists in Israel.

Naomi Winborne Idrissi, a co-founder of ‘Jews for Boycotting Israel Goods’, for example complains that “The Israeli state identifies Israel with all Jews. It aims to speak for all of us. But we say Israel and Zionism does not represent us.”

Jane Eisner likewise notes that “the line between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is becoming ever thinner and more porous, and it may disappear altogether,” and talks about the “demographic trends that already connect the fate of diasporic Jews with Israel whether they like it or not.

There was hardly a more adamant anti-Zionist in Britain than the late Labour MP Gerald Kaufman – a Holocaust survivor who couldn’t be dismissed as anti-Semitic and therefore ended up being dismissed as a ‘self-hating Jew’.

The most famous example of this is the brilliant Hannah Arendt, who was one of the most famous, respected intellectual figures and progressives of the twentieth century.

Arendt, who fled Nazi Germany at the age of 27, was eventually labelled ‘an enemy of Israel’ for her views. As Daniel Maier-Katkin notes in this account, ‘Arendt’s experience in the 1960s offers an early example of repressive strategies for the punishment and repression of dissent.’

Arendt (pictured below) had been famously reporting on the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Israel in the 60s, when she had become disturbed by the nationalistic fervour in Israel, which the trial of Eichmann was being calculatedly used to intensify and maximise (for the sake of amplifying the sense of Jewish victimhood and reactionary Jewish nationalism: it’s essentially the same tactic the Netanyahu government has been adopting in Europe, particularly in the wake of French terror incidents seen to be targeting Jewish people).

The Council of Israeli Jews From Germany wrote to Arendt demanding that she withdraw her book from publication or face a “declaration of war.”

An old friend of hers, Gershom Scholem, even wrote a public letter declaring that Arendt had “insufficient love for the Jewish people” – which is frankly an extraordinary charge to level at a Holocaust survivor.

The point is to highlight that the Zionist ideaology and agenda was never favourable or even sympathetic to Jewish people – but only to those who were indoctrinated into the geo-political purpose of Zionism specifically.

Which, during the decades immediately after Zionism’s inception and also during the years of World War II and the Holocaust, was NOT the majority of Jewish people at all.

And while World War II was an unparalleled tragedy and horror for millions of Jews, it was – perversely – the most favourable thing that ever happened (even more than the Balfour Declaration in 1917) for the geo-political agenda of international Zionism.

The only interest and agenda of the international Zionist movement had been to acquire Palestine for the creation of a new Jewish homeland – this was largely accomplished by the Balfour Declaration in 1917; but there remained even after this a problem that most Jewish people still didn’t care about Palestine or identify with the idea of the national homeland ‘for the Jews’.

In fact, it is even well documented that a great many of the European Jews who did take up the offer to go to Palestine once the Nazis really began to humiliate, torment and demonise Jewish people in Germany and Europe actually decided to come back to Europe – because they just didn’t get what the fuss or the appeal was about Palestine (the photo below is a snapshot of Arab, pre-Zionist Palestine) and they felt lost there.

This subject was covered extensively in episodes of the superb documentary series about the Holocaust, Warning From History.

It is one of the most bittersweet elements of the horrors of what was done to Jews in Europe – the fact that a number of people actually managed to escape, but then came back, perhaps not realising how much worse things were soon to get for Jews in Germany.

But it also shows that the Zionist agenda, despite the Balfour Declaration, just wasn’t holding sway over most Jewish people.

It has become increasingly evident over the decades that this zealous and single-minded commitment to acquire Palestine overrode every other concern – to committed Zionists, the Holy Land was the only important thing, no matter what had to be done to pave the way.

The affairs, well-being or even lives of ordinary Jews (who weren’t particularly interested in the Zionist agenda) were seen as irrelevant or as mere collateral damage for the sake of a perceived greater goal.

It is this sense of zealous, extreme commitment to a single geo-political outcome that becomes increasingly disturbing the more you examine the historic evidence.

A 1993 piece by Mark Weber for The Journal of Historical Review thoroughly corroborates the historical reality of Nazi/Zionist collaboration in regard to Palestine.

‘Early in 1935, a passenger ship bound for Haifa in Palestine left the German port of Bremerhaven,’ he writes, beginning the article. ‘Its stern bore the Hebrew letters for its name, “Tel Aviv,” while a swastika banner fluttered from the mast. And although the ship was Zionist-owned, its captain was a National Socialist Party member. Absurd or not, this is but one vignette from a little-known chapter of history: The wide-ranging collaboration between Zionism and Hitler’s Third Reich‘.

Weber, who in 1988 had testified for five days in Toronto District Court as a respected ‘expert witness’ on Germany’s war-time Jewish policy and the Holocaust, proceeds in the article to lay out in entirely sober, historical terms, the substantial cooperation between international Zionists and Nazi Germany.

After offering a comprehensive historic account, he concludes, ‘During the 1930s no nation did more to substantively further Jewish-Zionist goals than Hitler’s Germany’.

It might surprise most people to discover that after the horrendous Nuremberg Anti-Jewish Race Laws were enacted in September 1935, only two flags were permitted to be displayed in all of Nazi Germany – one being the Nazi swastika, the other being the blue and white emblem of Zionism.

This isn’t something you’ll see noted in TV documentaries about the Holocaust or Nazi Germany. The logic of this, however, was that an increase in adherents to the Zionist agenda to colonise Palestine suited the Nazis, as they wanted Jews gone from Germany and Europe.

Most German Jews were fully assimilated and considered themselves Germans or Europeans and didn’t want to go to Palestine; but the Zionists continued to push their solution, and at this point in history, they appear to have been doing so with full Nazi cooperaiton.

Something very odd and unnerving happens when you actually look at any sequence of period posters, adverts or slogans for the Zionist programme in Palestine – in tone and style, they look incredibly similar to Nazi/Aryan propaganda images from Germany.


It’s a surreal thing to observe.

While the cruel, disgusting caricatures and anti-Semitic images the Nazis put out to demonise Jews in Germany show the horrible, ugly face and reality of anti-Semitism and Aryan supremacism, the Zionist images and posters for colonising Palestine almost seem to be modelled on Aryan-style propaganda. If you removed the lettering entirely and just saw the imagery, you’d think you were looking at German ‘Master Race’ imagery from the 1930s.

There are a number of accounts of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis and most of these are the work not of anti-Semites but of Jewish authors. The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine is a book by Edwin Black. A son of Holocaust survivors, Black doesn’t seem to have much love for Palestinians (he is in fact pretty unpleasant about them in the book) and in fact himself remains a firm Zionist.

Yet he wrote comprehensively about the Transfer Agreement (Haavara) between the World Zionist Organisationand Nazi Germany.

Lenni Brenner’s work, 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis, pretty much lays the matter to rest. Among other remarkable finds unearthed in Brenner’s research, it emerges that Avraham Stern, the leader of the notorious terrorist ‘Stern Gang’ in Israel had, in late in 1940, writtern to Hitler (the text having been discovered in the German embassy in Turkey after World War II), proposing that the Jewish militias in Palestine would fight on “Germany’s side” in the war against England (in exchange for the Nazis help in resolving the “Jewish Question” in Europe and their assistance in creating an “historic Jewish state”).

For perspective, these were Zionist nationalists now offering to fight for Nazi Germany and against the country that had given them Palestine (the Balfour Declaration) in the first place.

It should be noted that he had written this proposal at a time when Nazi troops had already invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland and already constructed the Auschwitz concerntration camp. Stern had also openly boasted that the Zionists were“closely related to the totalitarian movements of Europe in [their] ideology and structure.”

The civil rights activist, Brenner, also explores, among many other things, how when Adolf Eichmann was in Palestine in 1937, it was as the guest of the Zionists.

And how, for example, after the Holocaust began in 1942, Eichmann was dealing regularly with Dr. Rudolf Kastner, a Hungarian Jew who he considered a “fanatical Zionist.” Eichman said about Kastner, “I believe that [he] would have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal. He was not interested in old Jews or those who had become assimilated into Hungarian society. ‘You can have the others,’ he would say, ‘but let me have this group here.’ And because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping keep the deportation camps peaceful. I would let his groups escape…”

Quite what Eichmann was thinking two decades later, as he stood trial in Israel for his Nazi crimes, we don’t entirely know. Because, in the late 60s – and at the same time that Holocaust survivor Hannah Arendt was being disturbed by the way Eichmann’s trial was being used to inflame Zio-nationalism and she being vilified as a ‘self-hating Jew’ for her concerns – Eichmann might’ve been wondering where all of his former Zionist collaborators had disappeared to while he was being sentenced to death.

While any reference to the Zionist collaboration with the Nazis in regard to Palestine was buried from popular consciousnness – and with the unparalleled horror of the Holocaust fresh in the minds and consciences of most people – the Zionist nationalists in Israel were using Eichmann to radicalise a generation of younger Israelis and Jews into a fanatical belief in the necessity of the Jewish State – because the Holocaust was what happened when Jews didn’t have Israel.

This notion that the fanatical Zionists may have had an astonishing lack of sympathy for or identification with the European Jews who were being liquidated in the Holocaust is reinforced by, of all people, David Ben-Gurion, who is quoted as having said (in 1938): “If I knew it was possible to save all the children in Germany by taking them to England, and only half of the children by taking them to Eretz Israel, I would choose the second solution.”

Ben-Gurion was the founder of the modern State of Israel and its first Prime Minister – and yet here he was, essentially dismissing the inhumane slaughter of millions of Jews as some kind of acceptable colateral damage for the sake of the Zionist goal.

But he was simply echoing the statements of Zionism’s hero, Chaim Weizmann.

He in fact seemed to regard those Jews who didn’t subscribe to the Zionist ideology as less important than those who wanted to go to Palestine; even if it amounted – in principle – to letting them perish at the hands of the most evil of anti-Semites.

But again, this was simply reinforcement of Weizmann’s and Greenbaum’s earlier position – “One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe.”

And again, this exploration of the Nazi/Zionist collaboration and shared interest has been conducted by a number of writers and researchers, most of them Jewish. Raul Hilberg’s seminal The Destruction of European Jews, Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem, and Rafael Medoff’s The Deadening Silence: American Jews and the Holocaust, are a few well-known examples.

You can read the full text of Hilberg’s Destruction Of The European Jews here.

Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld went further and accused the Zionists directly of collaborating in the Nazi slaughter of European Jewry. The picture he paints is particularly grim.

He argues that, while European Jews in their millions were entirely at the mercy of the Nazis all across Europe, international Zionist leaders in America and elsewhere were deliberately goading Hitler towards further hostility against Jews.

They began in 1933 by initiating a worldwide boycott of German goods, with the American Zionist Rabbi Stephen Wisedeclaring “war on Germany”. Wise didn’t just declare war on Germany on behalf of the Zionist project – he did so, conciously and deliberately, on behalf of all Jews.

Shonfeld also quotes Chaim Weizmann – the Zionist figurehead and mastermind of the Balfour Declaration – as having said “Every nation has its dead in its fight for its homeland. The suffering under Hitler are our dead.” Weizmann referred to the Jewish victims as having been “moral and economic dust in a cruel world.”

Again – six-million Jews more or less dismissed as a necessary sacrifice for a greater goal.

But permanent Zionist and pro-Zionist policy has been generally to viciously disavow any Jewish figure or writer who questions the Zionist narrative or touches upon some of the more inconvenient elements of history. Such figures are often dismissed as ‘self-hating Jews’ or some such, like Hannah Arendt was (Arendt, for the record, was in favour of the State of Israel, but envisioned it being a secular, pluralistic democracy for Jews, Arab Muslims and Christians, and athiests).

None of this is conspiracy theory or speculation.

None of this is questioning even for a moment the reality of the Holocaust, nor is it – even for a moment – looking to shift any responsibility for the mass slaughter away from the evil Nazi perpetrators. None of it is referencing any popular conspiracy lore like the Protocols of Zion or the idea that Hitler was a Zionist puppet, nor playing to the racist ‘Jewish Conspiracy’ tropes that all-too-often underlie or accompany attempts to critique or vilify the Zionist project.

All this is is a case of removing the blinkers, sidestepping the contrived mythology and looking soberly at the evidence.

Evidence that, behind the commonly maintained narrative of the Zionist story (including the Holocaust and the Balfour Declaration), there is another narrative is usually ignored or not understood.

And what you find is something incredibly perverse in considering the Zionist attitude towards – and, in some respects, their possible complicity in – the millions of Jews slaughtered by Nazi Europe, and then perceiving how the horrors of the very same Holocaust are now used to prevent any questioning of Zionism itself.

In terms of the Balfour Declaration itself, there is – as demonsrated here – an obvious link between this agreement and what would later unfold in the Holocaust.

Not a causal link necessarily; but there’s no question that the two events in history were tied together. The text of the Balfour Declaration itself reads fairly innocuously; but the reality of history is not in official documents or even in official, consensus versions of history, but in the larger flow of interconnected actions, motives and events that form the bigger picture.

Examination of those interconnected actions, motives and events can often reveal more uncomfortable or inconvenient truths that the official or consensus version of history often overlooks or deliberately ignores.

When one examines statements by some of the most important Zionists – including early Israeli leaders – and their attitude towards the millions of “less important” Jews in Europe, one has no choice but to conclude that the mainstream narrative of the Zionist story (and therefore the Balfour Declaration) is highly selective and sanitised, to say the least.

Where does that leave things now? And how relevant is any of this to today?

Arguably not very. After all, 100 years on now from the Balfour Declaration, the State of Israel itself has every right to exist – just as no one would really now question the United States’ legitimacy as a nation, despite its vast theft of land from the Native Americans.

The moment has passed. The debate (concerning legitimacy) is over – and should’ve been more carefully argued or managed many decades ago at the time when Britain and the Colonial Powers were carving up nations and communities and making questionable deals.

Lots of nations or societies have their founding or creation mythologies – often a heroic or noble narrative that bears little relation to the sober truth (again, the United States is another example; North Korea is another too). But we generally don’t fixate on a nation’s legitimate right to exist or right to self-interest after a certain amount of time.

Has the Zionist project been a success?

Accomplishing the Balfour Agreement was itself a stunning success – statements even from the time and from the movement’s key players show that they were stunned they’d pulled it off.

But assessing that question beyond that depends entirely on perspective. From a Zionist perspective, it has been an absolute success – now missing only the final piece of the puzzle (the annexation of Jerusalem and seizure of the Temple Mount). The Zionist project has not only succeeded in creating its state, but in acquiring a nuclear arsenal, maintaining the permanent financial and military backing of powerful governments and patrons, establishing arguably the most cunning and effective foreign intelligence agency in the world, expanding its land far beyond the originally-agreed borders, and becoming almost immune from international law.

However, all those warned of or predicted endless problems have also been proven right.

It isn’t Britain’s fault that a nationalist Israeli government has done more and more to oppress or deprive the Palestinian population – something that was explicitly advised against in the Balfour Declaration. Or that Zionist/nationalist settlers continue to occupy illegal territory beyond the internationally-recognised borders, and continue to bulldoze Palestinian homes and communities and build illegal settlements.

In essence, this might be why the Zionist question – and the anger towards Israel – remains ongoing: the perception that the Zionist project is still ongoing.

The perception that acquiring Palestine in the first place somehow wasn’t enough and was never going to be enough. The perception that, even 100 years later, the ‘Zionists’ are still at it, still trying to take more, despite everything that was given to them.

It’s a big, complicated equation of subjects and considerations – the aim in this article was only to talk about a specific period in history and not the modern day situation.

The problem is in the very same Colonial Power that signed that situation into existence deciding, a century on, to celebrate that action as if it should be regarded a proud moment – and as if everything borne from that decision has been wonderful.

It is all the more misguided due to the common perception that this same state that signed the Balfour Declaration is also – to the present day – seen as one of the states that continues to support and protect the Zionist project even when international law or agreements are called into question and no matter how far from the terms of the original Balfour Declaration the Zionist project deviates.

What’s extroardinary is that, a century later, we don’t seem to have changed our approach to the world.

Think of the catastrophes we helped create in Iraq and Libya, for example. Yet, at a time when we should be engaged in critical self-analysis and looking to process our possible mistakes or culpability, we have a government that chooses to celebrate it instead.

Read more: ‘Auschwitz, the Holocaust Survivors & the Lessons We Haven’t Learnt‘, ‘Hannah Arendt & the ‘Self-Hating Jews’ Who Survived the Holocaust‘, ‘Behind the Veil of the Anti-Semitism Crisis‘, ‘When Saudi Arabia Ruled the World‘, ‘Iraq & the Endless Conflict Equation‘…


Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on From the BALFOUR DECLARATION to the Holocaust: How the Zionist Project Won Palestine

Jerusalem, Trump, the Christian Zionist Crusade & the Biblical Apocalypse


Well, that was bloody insane – all of it.

But then we appear to be living in an insane asylum in which the inmates have taken control.

If you ever needed a more perverse and overt expression of the incestousness nature of the Trump/Netanyahu relationship – and indeed of the Zionist/End-Timers fanaticism that I keep talking about here – it was in the last couple of days, which saw the official ceremony for the new US embassy in Jerusalem, accompanied by the deaths of dozens of Palestinian protesters.

I don’t want to keep re-writing the same points over again, so I’ve re-posted below (in full) the older article on Jerusalem, the embassy move, and more importantly the Judeao-Christian Zionist plan to seize the Temple Mount and pave the way for the ‘rapture’, the Second Coming and the Biblical Apocalypse.

I’ve covered that matter several times here before, including crucially in the ‘Seeds of Fascism’ article, which laid out the reality of the extremist-Zionist takeover of Israel (which a former Israeli Prime Minister had in fact warned us about), as well as that government’s involvement in the rise of Far-Right ‘populism’ across the West and the growth of European Zionism, the Trump/Kushner/Netanyahu factor, the Zionist sponsorship of the so-called ‘Alt Right’, and – importantly – how it all related directly to the Zionist plan to violate international law and seize the Temple Mount and Jerusalem.

If anyone never read that very detailed article, it is worth doing so for very important context (read it here).

On the Trump administration’s alliance with the right-wing government in Israel (and the US media’s clever use of ‘Russia-Gate’ to obscure the reality of ‘Israel-Gate’), that was covered here, while the subject of the Trump regime’s outsourcing of US foreign policy to Israel was covered in the article about the Iran Nuclear Deal here.

For the record, I wrote hereweeks before Trump’s inauguration as President, that we were about to see a “Christian-Zionist Crusade” unfold (accompanied by a continuing Neo-Con/PNAC agenda): and now that predicted lunacy appears to be in full swing.

Below is the re-post of the article on the orchestrated apocalypse scenario that evangelical Christian Zionists have been seeking in Jerusalem – to bring about the End of Days.

I only want to preface that with a brief (and relevant) note on the events two days ago in Jerusalem.

The ceremony, which featured a jubilant Netanyahu and Jared Kushner (former house-mates, you know), also featured two very interesting guest speakers: specifically high-profile (and super-wealthy) American evangelical preachers (and professed Christian Zionists) John Hagee and Robert Jeffress.

Hagee has been an infamous Christian Zionist and Rapture-enthusiast for many years and is in fact one of the most important figures in both American Zionism and evangelical ‘End-Times’ fascination, while Jeffress (pastor of a Dallas ‘mega church’) famously heralded Donald Trump’s inauguration as having been ordained by God, regarding Trump as a divinely-guided saviour figure whose arrival was a pointer to the imminent return of Jesus.

I note these details here, because they reinforce perfectly the themes and content of the article below. Hagee, who was inivted to perform the ceremony’s final ‘blessing’, proclaimed (as dozens of Palestinian protesters were being pummelled nearby) “The Messiah will come and establish a Kingdom that will never end”. The highlight of his contribution was a rock-star-like sing-along with the crowd of “Israel Lives, Israel Lives!”

There’s no question whatsoever that Hagee and Jeffress were someone‘s very deliberate choice of speakers for this event: anyone could have been invited to speak, including any number of more moderate, intelligent or refrained invididuals. Indeed, given the inflammatory nature of the entire event, more sophisticated minds might’ve been more careful to have a low-key, less over-the-top event. Instead, the US and Israeli officials involved wanted a big, provocative event – and there’s no doubt at all that Hagee and Jeffress were invited to make a very deliberate impression and capture a very specific mood.

If it wasn’t so serious (and if so many protesters hadn’t been killed while this event was going on), the whole affair would almost have seemed like a nightmarish parody – or something like a Mel Brooks spoof of an evangelical Zionist event. But this surreal sense of deadly parody has been the tone of everything ever since Donald Trump won the presidential election – every embarassing, painful or ominous element of this affair was already foreshadowed entirely by the farce of Trump’s inauguration a year ago (which I observed with real concern at the time here), which – fittingly enough – had involved Pastor Jeffress making an unhinged, apocalyptic sermon.

My friend James at the Crimes of Empire site summarised John Hagee’s role aptly in this old article: ‘John Hagee is one of the most popular and aggressive proponents of the Christian Zionist abomination in the US today. Hagee’s task appears to be to keep as many of the apparently ignorant Christians of the US safely in thrall to the Zionist project as possible…

Also, just to reinforce the absurdity of both Christian ‘End-Times’ Zionism and its alliance with more logical Jewish Zionism that the article below touches on, Jeffress had once proclaimed that Jews cannot be saved and will burn in Hell, while Hagee was widely reported to have proclaimed that Hitler had been sent by God to drive Jews into their ancestral homeland of Israel (so that Jesus could come and eventually smite them all).

And these are the two clowns someone decided would be perfect to grace the opening of the illegal US Embassy in Jerusalem – what a world we live in! On another note, if Hagee – who said Hitler was God’s vehicle for enabling Zionism – was invited to grace the embassy opening, why on earth is Ken Livingstone (who merely said that Hitler had favoured mass Jewish emigration to Palestine) still barred from the Labour Party and being called an ‘anti-Semite’?

Surely, if the evidence of the last couple of days is anything to go by, the present Israeli officials adore Anti-Semites?

Anyway, I can’t contemplate any of this fucking stupid nonsense anymore without my head exploding. So, below is a handy guide to Jerusalem and the orchestrated Christian apocalypse that is presumably set to be played out some time in the next few years.

At least it’ll make John Hagee extremely happy.



Why JERUSALEM is So Important to the Apocalypse Fantasists…


Jerusalem is regarded as an international city, under a world body protectorate.

That is its prevailing status.

The United Nations has affirmed in a number of resolutions that continued Zionist colonisation of Jerusalem is illegal under international law. Every Zionist settlement in illegally occupied East Jerusalem is a direct contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids an occupying power from transferring colonists into the areas it occupies.

The UN Partition Plan in 1947 – which divided Palestine between Jewish and Arab states – was clear to grant Jerusalem special status, placing it under international sovereignty and control. To some, this situation isn’t ideal – but to most, it’s the situation that works.

This special status was based on the historic city’s cultural and religious importance to Muslims, Christians and Jews, meaning that no one party should have control over it. Jerusalem houses some of the most important buildings or locations in all three religions and has always been a melting pot of all three – and other – communities.

Apart from Donald Trumpno leader or country in the world recognises Israeli claims to Jerusalem – and no country has its embassy in Jerusalem (including, at this time, the United States).

Juan Cole does a good job of laying out the case here way back in 2010 for why East Jerusalem doesn’t belong to Israel.

It is generally understood that Israel has no legally recognised claim to Jerusalem, that annexation of Jerusalem was never part of any internationally-recognised agreement, that every Zionist settlement or house in occupied Jerusalem is illegal, and that any Israeli move to annex Jerusalem will have dire consequences.

Zionist agents in various countries, however, have been openly pushing for the annexation of Jerusalem in recent years. In fact, various political figures or parties (the Austrian Far-Right, for example) have gone to Israel and made “the Jerusalem Declaration”.

Trump isn’t the only one. Geert “What We Need is Zionism For Europe” Wilders was calling for complete Israeli annexation during his bid to win the recent Dutch election, while Trump has previously expressed support for the Zionist claim to seize Jerusalem and make it the Israeli state capital and Jewish national capital – in keeping with Biblical Prophecy and evangelical ‘End Times’ agenda.

An alternate title for this article could be ‘Armageddon – an organised event starring the fanatical zealots of all three Abrahamic religions’. And, of course, it has to center on Jerusalem. Where else?

And that’s what’s scary. Even Donald Trump, in all his cluelessness, surely understands that there’s nothing non-dangerous or non-loaded about making toxic and unnecessary statements about that city. It’s as if the cheerleaders for the apocalypse are all getting geared up for the big event, doing whatever they now can to push it into motion.


The underlying reason for the longstanding Zionist/nationalist agenda for occupying Jerusalem is to seize the Temple Mount and rebuild Solomon’s Temple – an event that relates to the coming of the Jewish Messiah (and for Christian Zionists, to the Second Coming of Christ).


What is extraordinarily stupid about this is that those two ideas or expectations – the coming of the Jewish Messiah and the Second Coming of Jesus – are fundamentally contradictory.

Nonetheless, for a good understanding of the true nature of this Zionist/American agenda for the ‘Holy Land’, see Grace Halsell’s article here, or seek out his book Forcing God’s Hand, which exposes the strange alliance between millions of ‘born again’ American Christians who long for the ‘Rapture’ and ‘Armageddon’ and believe it all hinges on the land of Israel.

The main problem with this idea of rebuilding Solomon’s Temple is of course that it will require the demolition of the Al-Aqsa mosque – an act that could potentially set off a religious/sectarian conflict like nothing seen in recent times.

That’s kind of the point, however.


Victoria Clark’s 2007 book, Allies for Armageddon: The Rise of Christian Zionism, is also a good resource for understanding the apocalyptic/religious dynamics of the Zionist/US alliance in regard to the Holy Land.

Again, in this context, we should remind ourselves that President Trump (backed by the Zionist propagandist and apocalypse-enthusiast Steve Bannon) did express his support for Jerusalem being seized and made the Israeli capital quite some time ago. This isn’t some new, shocking thing – as the MSM seems to think it is – but has always been a stated part of the Trump/Bannon/Kushner agenda.

Which is why it is no surprise that both Bannon and Kushner fund illegal Zionist demolition of Palestinian homes and colonisation of occupied territory.



So after all these years, is the Zionist movement finally maneuvering to seize the Temple Mount and begin the prophesied rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple?

The answer is most likely yes. It has been planned by certain elements in Israel for a long time; but it was waiting for the right sets of circumstances to be in place.

It has long been regarded as an event that – as inevitable as it might be – would probably trigger off a major conflict. From even when I was a child, I remember being told by someone older than me that Israel would never go that far because it would set off a Holy War.

However, those were simpler times.

There is already holy war in some form or another going on across virtually the entire Middle East; and with both the regional and the Western powers fully distracted with jihadists, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and the Iran/Saudi proxy war, now is the perfect time for the extreme right-wing government in Israel to move on the Temple Mount.

With everything else going on in the Middle East, the plight of the Palestinian people has been pushed into the background of regional concerns, and moreover the across-the-board demonisation and mistrust of ‘Muslims’ and of Islamic militancy in the West that has occurred in the last 10 – 15 years has eroded a lot of the international sympathy for the Palestinians (even though Palestinians are also Christian).

I am increasingly convinced all of that has been by design.

And that it goes as far back as the assassination of the moderate and peace-seeking Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1994 (by Zionist-Jewish extremists) and the later assassination of PLO figurehead Yasser Arafat (via pollonium poisoning and almost certainly by Mossad).

Just to say something else here, before we carry on: every government or country is entitled to (or, more accurately, expected to) look out for its own self-interests, sometimes even via nefarious, convoluted means. Most countries do it, especially powerful countries.

But there does come a point where you’re just taking the piss.

I wrote in a very long article early this year about the warning that had been issued from *within* Israel about an extremist take-over that had occurred within the Israeli government; including a warning by a former Israeli Prime Minister (Ehud Barak) about the “seeds of fascism” that were present in what others were calling “the most extreme government in Israeli history”.

I argued in that same article that a lot of the crises going on elsewhere – that we think are entirely unrelated to the situation in Israel – might in fact be entirely connected to the agenda of that extreme government in Israel. And I concluded in that piece that the central purpose of all of this was to place Israel in a position to be able to make a play for Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.

Interestingly, although the right-wing nationalists in Israel have sought annexation of Jerusalem for a long time – along with seizure of the Temple Mount; they have never been in a position to do so, due to international opposition (as well as domestic opposition within Israel) and the political make-up of (1) a Western world-order mostly dominated by liberal political parties that, despite their general support for Israel as a state, would not support forceful annexation of Jerusalem, and (2) an Arab world dominated by strong, independent states and leaders who (until relatively recently) generally supported the Palestinians and were a threat to Israeli military ambitions.

More interestingly, as I argued in this older article, Neo-Con-led geopolitics from the PNAC-orchestrated 9/11 onward have already ensured that the key regional states that might’ve intervened militarily against Israel in the event of full annexation of the Holy Land (or whose military power and strong, independent nature might’ve acted as a deterrent) – specifically the Pan-Arabists (like Gaddafi) and the Ba’athists (like Syria and pre-war Iraq) – are no longer in a position to do so.

In fact, every one of those regimes has either been toppled by the Neo-Cons or collapsed from the so-called Arab Spring (leaving now only Iran, Lebanon and whatever’s left of Syria).


In effect, something that no Israeli government could’ve really done twenty years ago is now wholly possible, because the way has been cleared: from the removal of Arafat and perceived de-legitimisation of Palestinian organisations/authorities to the proxy warfare waged on neighbouring Arab states to weaken them, the widespread encouragement of Islamophobia and demonisation of Muslims, the psychological warfare of the Islamist terror wave in Europe and the West (so that Palestinian terrorism can be equated in the popular mind with the virus of broader Islamist extremism – even the methods of all terror attacks in Europe seem to mimick older Palestinian attacks), and, finally, the conditions – and propaganda arrangements – being right for pro-Zionist nationalist-populists like Trump and Wilders to come into place to advocate for militant Zionism and to work to legitimise actions that are wholly illegitimate.


Quite simply, the time is finally right – and having true Zionist supporters or agents in the White House (as opposed to a reluctant ally like an Obama) is arguably the final piece of the equation.

This has all been building for some time, step by step. Two years ago, when groups of extreme Jewish-nationalists – backed by paramilitary – were violating the mosque area, with Palestinian access to the Old City being more and more restricted and illegal Zionist colonists seizing more and more Palestinian homes, Mazin Qumsiyeh wrote ‘It is now clear that there is an orchestrated campaign to destroy the indigenous presence here. The Israeli military occupiers have decided to close down the Old City of Jerusalem to Palestinians while allowing Israeli Jews to rampage, taunt and attack the native Jerusalemites, Christians and Muslims…’

Indeed, that crisis at that time – which included multiple Palestinian knife attacks on Israelis and instances of some Jewish/Zionist settlers setting fire to Palestinians in Jerusalem and calling for “shoah” against the non-Jewish population – might well have been a partly (or wholly) manufactured situation to act as a dry-run for what might need to happen in the future.

Some even then were claiming it was a manufactured situation: if it was (and I don’t know if it was or wasn’t), it might’ve been to see what would happen if Zionist zealots began to act more aggressively in Jerusalem.

On a similar note, if Trump genuinely moves towards Jerusalem being made Israeli capital, it is liable to provoke a resurgence in Palestinian attacks – which, in turn, will give the Israeli military all the justification it needs to take harsh, sweeping actions (witness ‘Operation Protective Edge‘ in 2014). The day afyer Trump’s Jerusalem announcement, there was already talk from some quarters of “a new intifada”.

Likewise, it seems likely that Trump’s announcement was also designed to provoke further backlash or inflame further anger across the Middle East, allowing a further escalation of the much sought-after ‘clash of civilisations’ scenario that many of the key players (including apocalypticist Steve Bannon, who has spoken at length about wanting an apocalyptic showdown between – in his mind – a Judaeo/Christian Crusader-style West and Radical Islam) seem to believe in.


Of course, it gets worse.

Zionist Jewish nationalists want to ‘rebuild the Temple’; as in what they perceive to be Solomon’s ancient temple, destroyed by Vespasian and the Romans in AD 79.


The only way to do this is to demolish the Al-Aqsa mosque. And the only people who want this to happen more than Jewish nationalists are the Christian/American Zionists, specifically right-wing evangelicals who fully back ultra-nationalist Jewish activity in Jerusalem, simply because they want to trigger a Third World War and, more importantly, the Biblical ‘Armageddon’ and subsequent Second Coming of Christ.

Why? Because they believe they – as pure, ‘Born Again’ Christians – will survive the ‘rapture’ and be raised by Jesus, while the rest of the world burns.

Israeli Zionist extremists in Jerusalem are fully backed and funded by American Christian zealots who want the Second Coming and the ‘rapture’ (despite the fact that Jewish lore insists the rebuilding of the Temple will mean the arrival of the Jewish Messiah and not the Christian version of Jesus – as pointed out earlier, it’s completely contradictory).

It’s also fair to say that the Christan evangelical Zionists don’t care at all about the traditional Christians of Jerusalem and Palestine – you know, the proper Christians who pre-date modern evangelical McChristianity by a few dozen centuries?

To make matters even more perverse, Muslims also believe that a ‘Second Coming’ of the Christian Jesus is to occur, but the fundamentalist Islamic view/prophecy has it that whoever the so-called Jewish ‘Messiah’ is (whose arrival is meant to be foreshadowed by the rebuilding of the temple), he is to be regarded as ‘the Anti Christ’.

In other words, the moment the Al-Aqsa is demolished and the Temple of Solomon is ‘restored’, we are probably looking at a Holy War to end all Holy Wars.

Even more perversely, as I’ve explored before (see here), some of this has already been playing out with the ‘Islamic State’ group in Iraq and Syria, with the so-called ISIS ‘Caliph’ – Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – being fabricated to play into Islamic prophecies about the End of the World and to convince would-be jihadist recruits that the End-of-the-World struggle between Good and Evil was in play.

For the record, there have long been claims that Baghdadi was an Israeli Mossad agent named Shimon Elliot. I’ve never particularly subscribed to that theory – my own belief, based on various sources, is that the so-called ‘caliph’ Baghdadi never really existed and was a fictional figurehead crafted to help all of those events gather momentum.

A key part of the ISIS psy-op was to bewitch or frighten people – both those in the terror group and those civilians in areas or towns that ISIS was taking over – with the idea that what was playing out was the Islamic ‘End-Times’ prophecy.

One wonders then if much of what is intended to play out over Jerusalem is also intended to excite or bewitch those who subsribe to Christian End-Times theology or Jewish Messianic expectations. Clearly that is what’s driving most of this: my question is whether those at the top of the agenda genuinely believe in all this stuff or whether it is simply a vehicle for bringing about some other objective or desired state of affairs.

But the point is that, across the board – whether it’s in the camps of extreme Islamism or in the camps of zealous Zionists or ‘End-Times’ Christians – we appear to be looking at deluded, zealous lunatics and apocalypse-fantasists.

RelatedHow the Zionist Project Won Palestine,’The Truth About the Iran Nuclear Deal‘, ‘Russia-Gate – Trump, Israel and the Real Collusion‘…


Posted in Palestine Affairs, USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jerusalem, Trump, the Christian Zionist Crusade & the Biblical Apocalypse

SEEDS Of FASCISM: Exposing the Truth – International Zionists, the “New World” & the ‘Return to the 1930s’



This is probably the most important thing that will be posted on this site this year,so I would ask anyone here to read it all the way through and then draw your ownconclusions.

The underlying theme that emerges from this article – which I have been putting together since December – is one of a possible international conspiracy behind the radical shifts in Western politics that may be occurring: that the perceived ‘rise of the Far Right’ across Western societies is not just a simple reactionary movement based on anti-immigration sentiment or refugee hysteria, but something more planned and with more obscured roots.

It is also a case of those simpler, more obvious things too, of course: there are multiple causes for the current wave of ‘populism’ and angry mobs. But it would fit this paradigm best to remember the quote by Dennis Healey about nothing in international politics happening by accident but being made to happen.

What follows in this article then is (1) what I conclude to be a demonstrable conspiracy, (2) some demonstration of what the connections are that support this conclusion, and (3) what the root of that conspiracy is and what its aim might be.

In a piece a couple of months ago on the Berlin truck massacre, I referred to the sinister connection between Zionist/nationalist extremists in Israel and the rise of Far-Right parties and figures in the Western world. That particular article was about how the head of Mossad led a delegation to a ‘secret meeting’ with the Trump team just hours before the ‘Islamist terror attack’ in Berlin happened. I had discovered this only via the Israel National News site, which reported this meeting on its website just hours before the Berlin attack (the original source is linked in the post).

No major media organisations covered it and even most alternative media seemed to ignore or miss it entirely.

At any rate, while that post was focused more on false-flag terrorism, I didn’t go properly into the reasons why I was linking the rise of the Far-Right in Europe (and nationalists in America) to the right-wing nationalist government in Israel.

So I will lay this out as comprehensively as I can here now; because, as I noted in the article about Michael Flynn’s ‘resignation’, shedding some light on this subject should prove of paramount importance to our understanding of the seismic political shifts that are presently being played out – and that will end up impacting on all of us.

The “seeds of fascism” quote in the title is not from me, but from a former Israeli Prime Minister I am quoting – and the context of that quote (and its importance) will become evident shortly.

Almost all mainstream media (and most of the alt-right media) is completely ignoring or deliberately omitting the reality of what I have laid out in the article below. But I believe – and have believed for some time – that the nature of Western civilisation itself could be in the balance, just as the Middle East has previously been in the balance since 9/11: and that, if the ‘race wars’ or ‘civil wars’ that various commentators keep predicting do materialise – and that, if we do get the ‘collapse of the liberal order’ that so many gullible people are now continuously calling for –  it is important that we have as much context and perspective as possible.

This is, by necessity, a very long, detailed article (covering everything from Trump, Geert Wilders, Marie Le Pen and even Brexit to the refugee crisis and the role of Biblical Prophecy in the agenda): but it needs to be, in order to make the case effectively – and to demonstrate that this isn’t some random speculation or theory I’m presenting here, but is the evidence-based argument for a conclusion that I have reluctantly come to, having spent over two months carefully checking and re-checking to make sure I’ve been seeing the picture correctly.

The original version of this was even longer and more detailed: but, because of the pressing nature of the subject and the impending elections in France, Germany and the Netherlands this year – as well as the societal conflicts already accompanying Brexit and the Trump administration – I have cut it down to the basics and didn’t want to delay posting this any longer.

The first section of this explores the current wave of nationalist or Far-Right politicians and parties – from Steve Bannon and co in the US to Geert Wilders, Marie Le Pen and others – and something interesting they all have in common.

The second deals with some of the curious historical record concerning the Zionist movement and 1930’s European fascism. 

The third explores what was going on in Israel itself prior to the emergence of Trump, Marie Le Pen, Geert Wilders and others.

The fourth explores Brexit in this context.

The fifth examines the potential collapse of the EU, the elimination of the ‘liberal’ order, and rise of a fascist super-state.

The sixth deals with Palestine, the Middle East and the long-sought ‘Armageddon’ conflict in Jerusalem – and how the current situation in the West relates to the Neo-Con/PNAC/Zionist activity in the Middle East since 9/11.


As I also noted in that post on the Berlin attack, I hadn’t deliberately gone looking for links between Israel and the rise of Far Right or nationalist parties in the West: I had simply been doing research on the various Far Right figures and networks, but had quickly noticed that the Israeli factor kept cropping up.

For starters, I already posted on the Zionist/Israel connections to the Trump administration in the US. While I don’t actually classify Trump as ‘Far Right’, his administration – particularly via the Zionist Breitbart/Goldman-Sachs Chief Strategist Steve Bannon (and now member of the National Security team) – is irrefutably tied to right-wing entities in the Israeli government.

As previously suggested, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s resignation may have related not to Russian influence on the election but to the Trump administration’s possible plans to bring in an Israeli mercenary-firm owner to take control of US intelligence and security agencies and operations – what could, in essence, be classified as a takeover of American intelligence and security.

In short, given those Israeli/Trump connections (Bannon and Kushner both support and are supported by illegal settlement builders – see here and here – while Trump has made zealously over-the-top statements in support of Israel’s right-wing government), the notion of the right-wing/Zionist elements in Israel having installed the Trump administration into the White House for its own purposes doesn’t seem very far-fetched.

Not that it should’ve seemed far-fetched to begin with anyway. On the activities of AIPAC, the Jewish Labour MP Gerald Kaufman (who died this week) commented“The odious pressure group, AIPAC — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — can destroy any United States politician who makes the slightest criticism of Israel’.


The extent of Donald Trump’s loyalty to Israel is clear, as was covered in this post.

But read this next quote from President Trump on foreign policy and the impression isn’t just of loyalty but of total subservience. This is a real quote, by the way (source): he said, “I’d really call up Bibi [Netanyahu], who is a friend of mine and I’d call up some people and be very dependent on what Israel wants. You know if they really want certain things and they are deserving of certain things…”

As was previously noted, after a difficult Israel relationship with Barack Obama, Netanyahu now has his man in the White House – cue the immediate ‘unrestricted settlement construction’ (half of them probably funded by Trump’s son-in-law and Netanyahu’s bunk-mateJared Kushner) on illegally occupied land, as declared by Benjamin Netanyahu.

Now, concerning Steve Bannon and Breitbart: you might’ve been previously given the impression in the media that Breitbart is very ‘anti-Semitic’ – but, as I have argued clearly before, there is a very big difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and you can be anti-Semitic and pro-Zionist at the same time; which is an underlying theme that you will find the more you examine the dynamics of what appears to be going on – and which I will come back to in a moment.

Here is Trump’s puppet-master, Steve Bannon, on Israel. “Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States of America. I have Breitbart Jerusalem, which I have Aaron Klein run with about 10 reporters there. We’ve been leaders in stopping this BDS (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions) movement…”

Which, arguably, is fine; every platform has its own leanings and positions.

But it goes a little deeper. Israel’s agriculture minister, Uri Ariel, in fact wrote to Bannon to express personal “thanks for your friendship with Israel,” while also talking about how Bannon’s platform, Breitbart, should be used “in order to promote the Israeli point of view in the media.”


You should make note of that particular statement when you try to understand the role of the ‘alt-right’ in acting as a propaganda platform for the rise of Far Right politicians across the West.

Meanwhile Naftali Bennett, Israel’s Education Minister (of Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud Party), gladly cited Donald Trump’s election as the end of any possibility of a Palestinian state.

Yaron London, an Israeli journalist, wrote simply that ‘a worldview which supports white supremacy matches our government’s interests.’ He goes on to explain that if Trump’s America’s can be made to “hate Arabs more than they hate Jews”, it would be a “good deal”.

The Zionist connection/nature of the so-called ‘anti establishment’ Trump/Bannon Alt-Right/Goldman-Sachs presidential set-up is fairly clear at this point and hardly needs to be demonstrated further.

But, as previously said, the more you look at the contemporary rise of dangerous, racist Far-Right parties – which could, potentially, mean a radical shift in Western civilisation and what Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis rather ominously calleda “reversion to the 1930s” (basically, a return to fascism) – the more you’re forced to confront an uncomfortable implication: specifically, that all roads seem to lead back to the right-wing nationalists in Israel and to Zionist-aligned lobbies.

That term – “reversion to the 1930s” – should startle any intelligent, reasonable person: but, given the events of the thirties and early forties in Europe, it should startle Jewish people more than anyone. And it does. But, again, Zionism as a political ideology doesn’t represent Jewish people or even all Israelis. To illustrate that point, we need only look at the late British MP Gerald Kaufman, as highlighted here.

When it comes to Trump, the current surge in Far-Right parties in Europe, and even Brexit, Israel is the elephant in the room that no mainstream media or ‘alt-right’ commentators seem to be willing to notice;preferring, as they do, to focus everyone’s attention on the idea of Russian ‘interference’ instead.

The Trump administration in the US is a lucid example of this; but it is also highly important in connection to the perceived ‘rise of the Far Right’ occurring in Europe. The more you look at the connections, the more inescapable it becomes that we are not looking merely at a series of isolated events in different countries, but a concerted, connected international movement with shared goals – and possibly shared sponsors and patrons.

On the surface of it, it is united by common features such as intense Islamophobia, anti-refugee rhetoric, anti EU aspirations, a desire to completely eliminate liberal politics and the often-referenced “liberal elite” (which is curious, as the ‘elites’ have always been right-wing and not left) and a general fixation on racial/identity politics; but beneath that more observable facade is a common interest in a radical reconfiguration of Western society.


We each may have our own view as to whether a radical reconfiguration of Western society would be a good thing or a bad thing: but it is important not to embrace such things blindly, but to have a clear understanding of the forces, players and connections involved.

Let’s talk about Geert Wilders, the rabidly anti-Muslim, Far-Right weirdo in Holland. Just a slightly over-the-top Dutch ‘patriot’ who hates Muslims and opposes immigration?

RT reported months ago that, ‘Dutch secret services conducted an investigation into ‘suspicions that Geert Wilders, head of the anti-Islam Party for Freedom, was strongly influenced by top Israeli military and political figures’.

His ‘Party for Freedom’ (PVV) has in fact been investigated by the country’s General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) over his “ties to Israel and their possible influence on his loyalty,” according to De Volkskrant newspaper.

We are told that, back in 2010, Wilders reportedly had close ties to influential people in Tel Aviv. At the time, he visited Major General Amos Gilad, former chief of the Israeli Defense Ministry’s intelligence division, and was also ‘frequently’ invited to meetings with the Israeli ambassador in the Netherlands.

Is is perhaps therefore unsurprising that Wilders, Trump and Bannon all sing from the same hymn-sheet when it comes to Israel, Muslims, immigration, and all the alt-right cliches.


It emerges that Wilders’ Israeli connections trace back to his youth, when he volunteered for a year at Moshav Tomer, a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bankaccording to the Times of Israel.

He also repeatedly referred to Jews as role models for Europe and urged a complete Israeli seizure of the West Bank.

So, as it happens, Wilders is even more zealously Zionist than Trump – and presumably shares Trump’s support for Jerusalem being annexed by Israel and made into the Israeli capital: an agenda that is rooted in both Christian and Jewish Zionism and Biblical End-Times prophecy and one that – if pursued – could set off a final Middle East conflagration (more on that later).

Uncoincidentally, Wilders – just like Trump – passionately condemned Obama, Kerry, the EU and the UN for its resolutions against Israeli illegal settlements some weeks ago.

There can be very little doubt that Geert Wilders is, like Bannon, a Zionist agent who is – either wholly or in part – meant to service the interests of the right-wing government in Israel.

Like Trump and Bannon, if elected, Wilders would be intended to bolster (or fully restore) international and European obedience to Zionist interests – specifically at a time where the EU, the UN and other institutions have been pulling back from longstanding acceptance of Israeli activities in occupied territory.

And like Trump and Bannon, Wilders’ particularly vicious anti-Muslim rhetoric and rabble-rousing should therefore be examined in the context of his Zionist connections.

This is an actual tweet from Geert Wilders’ Twitter account. ‘Let us all support Israel. Always. Israel is fighting for all of us.’ You really should actually go see the tweet on his timeline to get the full effect: it appears with an image of the Israeli Star of David flag.

In terms of Marie Le Pen and the Front National in France, Le Pen is generally considered staunchly pro Zionist.


However, it is worth noting that Marion Maréchal Le Pen – a Front National member of the French parliament (and Marie Le Pen’s niece) – is the daughter of Roger Auque, who was a self-confessed agent of Mossad. Auque, a spy and journalist, openly revealed that he worked for Mossad in his book In the Secret Service. Which is no small connection.

Bizarrely, despite the party’s established Nazi sympathies in the past (including her father, the party’s founder, being a Holocaust denier), Marie Le Pen has reinvented the Front National as a pro-Israel, pro-Zionist party.

Weeks ago, the secretary general of the Front National visited Israel and met with military, government and political officials. Curiously, Israel’s Foreign Ministry insisted that Nicolas Bay was on a private visit and that – on account of the Front National’s history of Nazi sympathy and anti-Semitism – he would not meet with any Israeli officials. Yet Bay then tweeted photos of his meetings with Israeli ministers, including leading members of Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party and the leader of the Likud’s ‘youth organization’.

According to the Associated Press piece, Bay’s photo of his meeting with an army colonel and government official later ‘disappeared’ from his Twitter timeline.


What is clear is that all of these parties and organisations (in different countries) are not a separate body but are related, working together – and with the international ‘alt-right’ media as their propaganda arm. All of this suggests that we may be being stage-managed into what Marie Le Penn recently prophesied was “the new world” (or ‘new world order’?) coming into being.

After Trump’s inauguration speech, prominent leaders of the Far Right in Europe – including France’s Marie Le Penn and Geert Wilders – came together in celebration and a show of force, taking Trump’s victory as a symbolic indicator of how this year could see several major Far-Right victories in Europe that could drastically alter the fabric and nature of European civilisation in concert with the potentially drastic course-change that could be occurring in America.

Austria just months ago narrowly avoided its own Far-Right party winning the Austrian election.

And, lo and behold, The Freedom Party too has its Israeli connection. By 2010, under Heinz-Christian Strache’s leadership, Austria’s Freedom Party had become extremely friendly towards Israel. In December 2010, the FPÖ (accompanied by representatives of other right-wing parties) visited Israel, where they issued the “Jerusalem Declaration” in support of the State of Israel (so far, that’s Trump, Wilders and the FPÖ all expressing support for an annexation of Jeruslaem). At the FPÖ’s invitation, Israeli Deputy Minister Ayoob Kara (of the right-wing nationalist Likud party in Israel) subsequently visited Vienna.

This same FPÖ party, remember, was founded by Nazi officers after World War II.

And like Le Pen’s Front National, the Freedom Party has been in a cross-party alliance in the European parliament with its other European counterparts, particularly the anti-Muslim Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom and Italy’s Northern League.

In terms of the rising opposition in Germany and anti-immigrant movements, it is unclear to me whether there is any Israeli connection at the organisational level – just because that connection exists with other Far Right parties and movements doesn’t mean it does in Germany too.

However, as I recently speculated – particularly in regard to the Berlin Christmas market attack (which I firmly believewas linked to the Mossad/Trump “secret security briefing” of the same day) – it would seem very likely that orchestrated terror attacks in Germany are aimed at the downfall of Angela Merkel and turning popular opinion towards nationalist, anti-immigrant politicians.

Attacks in France – including the false-flag Charlie HebdoNice and Paris attacks, the latter in particular having a clear Mossad fingerprint – have probably been designed to try to do the same thing (the Charlie Hebdo false-flag in particular – carried out by Special Forces that were either French or Israeli – was converted into a massive Israeli immigration-propaganda exercise urging ‘persecuted Jews’ in France to migrate to Israel where more illegal settlements would be built for them).

Which is something that may or may not work – we’ll find out this year, just as we will in Germany and the Netherlands.

But the Israel connection to the contemporary Far Right goes on further, manifesting even at the street level.

At PEGIDA and fascist/Neo-Nazi rallies and anti-refugee marches in Germany, Europe, Britain and even Australia, Israeli flags have been photographed on multiple occasions, even along with the usual neo-Nazi swastikas. The same was occurring with EDL rallies in England and with the ‘Britain First’organisation.

It has always struck me as distinctly odd: to see any Israeli flags at PEGIDA marches when senior figures in PEGIDA have been exposed dressing up as Hitler.



So, why would pro-Zionist groups or agencies debase themselves by fraternising with anti-semitic neo-Nazis and Far-Right parties in Europe? That is a question that Jewish people should be asking themselves – and one that I’m not comfortable trying to answer, as it would eventually lead back to old, controversial questions about the international Zionist movement, the 1930s Nazi government in Germany and Europe, and the attitude of both towards ordinary Jewish people (and the kind of thoughts that got poor old Ken Livingstone expelled from the Labour Party).

The frequent accusation that these parties and movements – the Front National included – are highly “anti-semitic” brings us back to the awkward, deceptive dynamics I hinted at in regard to Breitbart/Bannon. It’s a double-edged sword: they no doubt are anti-semitic on a basic level towards ordinary Jews, particularly Jews living in Europe – and those anti-semitic ideologies have always existed in the Far Right. But they also appear to be highly friendly with the right-wing government in Israel at the state-level. In other words, the real anti-Semitism (as in hatred or demonisation of ordinary Jews) is still very much there: sitting side-by-side with a passionate support for Zionism and Israeli expansionism.

This odd duality gets more and more curious the more you look at it. But it also starts to make more sense the more you examine the history of international Zionism.

Zionist agencies have, historically, found useful allies in extreme (and even ‘anti-Semitic’) nationalist movements.

A must-read 1993 piece by Mark Weber for The Journal of Historical Review thoroughly corroborates the historical reality of Nazi/Zionist collaboration in regard to Palestine.

Weber, who in 1988 had testified for five days in Toronto District Court as a respected ‘expert witness’ on Germany’s war-time Jewish policy and the Holocaust, proceeds in the article to lay out in entirely sober, historical terms, the substantial cooperation between international Zionists and Nazi Germany.

After offering a comprehensive historic account, he concludes, ‘During the 1930s no nation did more to substantively further Jewish-Zionist goals than Hitler’s Germany‘.

It might surprise most people to discover that after the horrendous Nuremberg Anti-Jewish Race Laws were enacted in September 1935, only two flags were permitted to be displayed in all of Nazi Germany – one being Hitler’s swastika, the other being the blue and white emblem of Zionism.

Lenni Brenner’s work, 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis, pretty much lays the matter to rest.

Among other remarkable finds unearthed in Brenner’s research, it emerges that Avraham Stern, the leader of the notorious terrorist ‘Stern Gang’ in Israel had, in late in 1940, writtern to Hitler (the text having been discovered in the German embassy in Turkey after World War II), proposing that the Jewish militias in Palestine would fight on “Germany’s side” in the war against England.

Stern had also openly boasted that the Zionists were “closely related to the totalitarian movements of Europe in [their] ideology and structure.”

The point I am grasping at here is not one of revisionist history or Holocaust denial (I don’t, for a moment, dispute the horrors of the Holocaust): rather, that there is highly disturbing implication in much of the historical record to suggest that the Zionist movement didn’t particularly care about the fate of those ‘assimilated Jews’ that were slaughtered in Europe – and were willing to ally with anyone who furthered the Zionist cause, regardless of what happened to non-Zionist Jewish people.


This notion that the fanatical Zionists may have had an astonishing lack of sympathy for or identification with the European Jews who were being liquidated in the Holocaust is reinforced by, of all people, David Ben-Gurion, who is quoted as having said (in 1938): “If I knew it was possible to save all the children in Germany by taking them to England, and only half of the children by taking them to Eretz Israel, I would choose the second solution.”

Ben-Gurion was the first Prime Minister of Israel.

And it therefore wouldn’t be entirely shocking now to learn that those who further that ideology are still willing to support or work with Far Right or ultra nationalist movements, even those that have anti-Semitic tendencies (or, as may be the case, even more willingly with those who have Islamophobic tendencies).

A peer-reviewed study published in the Routledge journal Israel Affairs found that anti-Muslim hate-propaganda is being used by Far Right extremists as a proxy for their longstanding racist and anti-Semitic ideologies.

In it, Professor Amikam Nachmani, chair of the Department of Political Science at Bar-Ilan Universitywrites that ‘Nazi-style rhetoric employed against the Jews is now targeted against Muslims’.

He continues, ‘Right-wing Europeans, among them Holocaust deniers and ardent anti-Semites, frequently decry Arab and Muslim migrants… But these very circles also consider it ‘natural’ to show sympathy for Israel, perceived by them as a staunch enemy of the Arab nation and Muslims… European right-wingers, nationalists and fascists are presently engaging in a freakish turn: they aim to gain legitimacy by courting Israel. They hope to brush aside their hatred of Jews and the anti-Semitic past of their countries, thanks to the support they grant to the Israeli cause in the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict…’

The professor also predicts (and this sentence should alarm everyone): ‘Armageddon will be fought out on European soil’.

Perversely, the same kind of ideology or agenda that was ambivalent about the mass murder of millions of ordinary Jews in the early 1940s – despite deriving enormous political power from that mass murder (by using it to power zealous Jewish nationalism in Palestine – as the Holocaust survivor and highly influential writer Hannah Arendt wrote extensively about) – will care even less about a second Holocaust in Europe involving Muslims; and may even be willing to support dangerous parties and movements that could bring it about.

It is important to note that, for every pro-Zionist Jewish person in Israel or Europe, there are other Jews who are very unhappy – even startled – by the Israeli nationalists’ unsavory alliances with Far Right entities.

While we’re on this subject, there is also a misconception – or misdirection – in a lot of (especially right-wing) commentary that Jewish people and Jewish ‘liberals’ are somehow part of a ‘Jewish Conspiracy’ based in liberal politics. This is complete nonsense – as are any false claims that ‘liberalism’ or progressivism (including, apparently, feminism and multi-culturalism) is somehow a ‘Zionist’ conspiracy.

A lot – possibly even the majority – of Jewish people, particularly those outside of Israel, do tend to lean towards left-leaning, progressive politics. They’re not Zionists – they’re just Jewish people.

The Zionists – both Jewish, Christian and atheist alike – are all on the hard-rightwhich is why they are aligning with others on the hard-right. Because left-leaning parties and governments and ‘liberal’ politicians (as well as liberal Jews), despite generally supporting the State of Israel, tend not to support demolition of Palestinian homes in illegally occupied territory, the expansion of illegal settlements, the normalisation of an Apartheid state, or the future annexation of Jerusalem and the West Bank.

If international Zionist agencies are now in the process of helping topple liberal-leaning governments or parties across the West, it is because those governments or parties have outlived their usefulness: Israel is no longer worried about an existential threat to the state itself, but is seeking to move on to the final process of the Zionist agenda that the Balfour Declaration enabled a century ago – the annexation of all remaining Palestinian territoryand – crucially – the ‘Holy Land’ (we will get to the main reason for this shortly).

But the point for now is that, for all the unconditional support for Israel that ‘liberal’-leaning parties have shown – for example, in France, in Germany, in the US, and in the previous Labour Party Britain – the same politicians and parties would not have been conducive to the final push by Israeli right-wing nationalists to seize Jerusalem and the Temple Mount: as was recently evidenced by, as mentioned already, Obama, Kerry, the EU and the UN formally condemning the Israeli settlement expansions.

In other words, the Zionist nationalists need to ensure foreign governments and allies that will support or at least tolerate their plans – even if it is at the expense of parties or politicians that have otherwise been very kind to Israel.

In fact, the ideologies of the international and European Far Right nationalists are a perfect mirror for the same nationalist, right-wing trend in Israel; and, likewise, there are many, many Jews who are as alarmed by this surge in Zionist nationalism in Israel as they are by the Far Right in Europe.

But the warning signs have been there all along, and we have been warned about it long in advance –including by Jewish activists opposed to the Israeli government, and even by people formerly in the Israeli government.

The appointment, for example, of Avigdor Lieberman from the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu party to Israel’s Minister of Defense last year was said to have alarmed many Jewish people, including in Canada. Lieberman, who lives in an illegal settlement in occupied Palestinian territory (and who once said that Palestinians who do not swear allegiance to Israel “should have their heads chopped off by an ax”), was brought in to replace Likud party member Moshe Yaalon – and Yaalon had quit on account of his stated concerns that Israel was being taken over by “extremist and dangerous elements.”

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak had in fact said that the current Israeli government was infected by the “seeds of fascism” and warned of what he saw as “a hostile takeover of the Israeli government by dangerous elements. And it’s just the beginning.”

And, again, the late Gerald Kaufman was warning British parliament about this years ago. On Benjamin Netanyahu’s return to power in 2009, Kaufman presciently warned about “what is about to become the most extremist government in Israeli history.”


Avi Primor, a former Israeli ambassador to German is among those expressing alarm at the alliance between Zionists and the Far-Right, saying, “We should not abandon our heritage and cut deals with the devil… I am afraid we are losing our ideals more and more.”

Given all of the information presented here, should we be asking whether this “hostile takeover” by “dangerous elements” in fact began in Israel (just as Ehud Barak warned was happening) and has proceeded on to the United States, with France, the Netherlands and much of Europe soon to follow?

And all as part of the same, inter-connected agenda? Or, to rephrase the question – is the future a fascist one? 

So, what about Britain and ‘Brexit’?

The accusation that British politics is under the control of Israeli lobbies is hardly new – but, even by those standards, the recent controversy over the Israeli ambassador in London talking about the “hit-list” of British MPs who should be “taken down” was pretty remarkable. The ambassador’s most notable target was Foreign Office deputy minister Alan Duncan,who is perceived as being too sympathetic towards the Palestinians. Crispin Blunt, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the House of Commons, was also identified as a target on account of his “pro-Arab” leanings.

Yet – even amid all the hysteria over alleged Russian influencing of Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and more – very little was made of this recorded and indisputable Israeli embassy talk of “taking down” British MPs. What it demonstrated is the extent to which some Israeli embassy officials believe they can make or break British politicians and parliamentarians and what some of them perceive as their right to interfere in sovereign British politics.

So, what of Brexit? It isn’t just the Murdoch press and the right-wing Daily Mail and Daily Express that have Zionist leanings and connections.

Most of the senior ‘Leave’ campaigners last year have some interesting things in common. The actor Boris Johnsondescribed himself as “a passionate Zionist”. Chris Grayling belongs to a Zionist lobby group called British Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM). Theresa Villiers, the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (and key Brexit campaigner) is an “officer” of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) – Ian Duncan Smith is also a member of the CFI. Liam Fox, a Neo-Con Brexiter, was previously forced to resign from his position when it was revealed that billionaire Israeli arms dealer, Poju Zabludowicz, was funding his lavish playboy lifestyle.


It is thus understandable that Zionist/Neo-Con Michael Gove (championed as preferred Prime Minister by Murdoch), was endorsed for PM by the son of the godfather of US neo-conservatism, William Kristol, who referred to him as “probably the most impressive member of the British Parliament”.

Brexit Prime Minister – the unelected Theresa May, who is mother of the Snooper’s Charter and also sought to bypass Parliament and act from ‘royal prerogative’ – is staunchly Zionist and said she was proud of changing British law to make it impossible to prosecute Israeli war criminals in the UK under Universal Jurisdiction: during what had been a controversial clash of opinion, with Holocaust survivor Gerald Kaufman being among the most vociferous opponents of the change.

Kaufman himself also recently outright complained about the extent to which the (pro Brexit) Conservative party in Britain is rolling in ‘Jewish money’.

Gilad Atzmon, citing Haaretznotes that Britain was always ‘operating as Israel’s puppet in the EU’ anyway.

It’s departure from the union could have a negative effect on Israel’s relationship with Europe, particularly in regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict. This was already borne out by the EU leading the way in proposing sanctions against Israel over the illegal settlements in occupied territory – something that the British government hid away from (and that both the Trump administration and Geert Wilders, among others, outright condemned the EU and the UN for).

Instead Britain will seem set to seek a hardcore alignment away from the EU and back towards the US (and Israel) in all respects, including foreign policy: curious then that ‘Brexit’ and the exit from the EU has coincided with the election of the pro-Israel Donald Trump administration, and could – potentially – this year also see drastic changes in France and Germany.

This would in fact be in-keeping with precedents: while the US may be heavily under the control of AIPAC and Zionist lobbies, it was Britain that brought about the Zionist colonisation of Palestine precisely 100 years ago, with a British government of the time being entirely under the sway of international Zionists. Precisely a century later, we may be in the precise same situation.

Fittingly enough, Britain is, in fact, later this year holding special celebration events to mark the centenary of the Balfour Declaration that guaranteed Zionist colonisation of Palestine; and Theresa May said she wants British people to feel ‘pride’ in the Balfour Declaration.

As Robert Fisk writes in The Independent, ‘This was predictable. A British prime minister who would fawn to the head-chopping Arab autocrats of the Gulf in the hope of selling them more missiles – and then hold the hand of the insane new anti-Muslim president of the United States – was bound, I suppose, to feel “pride” in the most mendacious, deceitful and hypocritical document in modern British history.’

It is also a plain fact, as previously laid out, that the British government (along with several others) and the corporate media have deliberately established a strategy of conflating ‘anti-Zionism’ with ‘anti-Semitism’ and moreover conflating Zionism as a political ideology with ‘Jews’ – as a means to shut down debate and make criticism of Israeli government actions extremely difficult (hence, the entire ‘anti-Semitism’ ‘scandal’ around Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party: which was manufactured largely by right-wing Israelis or Israel lobbyists  – see here – and which, in fact, largely targeted left-wing Jewish activists – see here).

I already posted about how this charge of anti-Semitism is being strategically used to suppress any criticism of Zionism or the government of Israel, and about how many Jewish people are among the most ardent critics of Zionism – including Holocaust survivors – and are themselves incapable of being ‘anti-Semites’. I, for my part, have always made it clear that when I use the term ‘Zionist’ I don’t mean ‘Jews’ or even ‘Israelis’, just as we don’t mean ‘Muslims’ when we say ‘Islamists’ and we wouldn’t mean ‘Germans’ when we said ‘Nazis’.

As I stated from the outset, I didn’t go looking for connections between Israel and the Far Right parties in the West – but those common connections kept cropping up every time I tried to look into current Far Right figures and populists like Geert Wilders and Steve Bannon, so consistently that I couldn’t ignore them anymore.


We are currently in a situation where the danger of a ‘Far Right Europe’, “a return to the 1930s” or even a fascist world order, could soon become palpable: and, from all appearances, it would absolutely suit the nationalist right-wing movement in Israel to see that happen. If you think I might be exaggerating, then take it from the Jerusalem Post, which published this article in 2015 with the headline ‘A FAR-RIGHT, PRO-ISRAEL FRANCE? EXPERT SAYS THIS IS WHERE ALL OF EUROPE IS HEADING…’

A collapse (or possible transformation and co-opting) of the EU via the support for all of these Far-Right, anti-EU parties may also be part of that agenda.

At the current rate of growth, Far-Right parties could win 37 per cent of seats in the European Parliament in the next election. As this analysis on Medium notes rather ominously, ‘This happens to be the same percentage of German votes that Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist party won in July 1932, precipitating the rise of the Nazi regime.’

None of this being said here is necessarily to be taken as a glowing endorsement of the EU or of anything the EU does: but is simply seeking to highlight some of the real dynamics of what may be going on. Likewise, this isn’t an anti-Brexit article and nor is it downplaying or minimizing the genuine, popular concerns that exist about immigration, integration, identity politics or refugees. And nor is it claiming that political figures like Trump or Le Pen don’t have any valid points or thoughts on domestic matters that don’t relate to Israel at all.

But the underlying connections are all there.

It is also very evident that Zionist lobbies, along with the Trump regime, probably do not want the EU to survive – and would, apparently, prefer right-wing nationalists (either to replace the EU or to hijack it from within in a neutralization of ‘liberal’ politics and parties).

This was typified by, for example, US Neo-Con Victoria Nuland’s support for neo-Nazi nationalists in Ukraine and her taped call (in 2014) – relating to that very subject – in which she was recorded saying “Fuck the EU”.

Here is the Leaked Phone Call of Victoria Nuland.

Nuland’s former boss is Iraq war criminal and architect Dick Cheney, and her husband is the Zionist/Neo-Con godfather Robert Kagan. Kagan was the co-founder of the 9/11-centered ‘Project For the New American Century‘ (PNAC), which openly called for the “New Pearl Harbour” (9/11) to enable the bloodsoaked Neo-Con agenda in the Middle East.

Nuland’s husband, Kagan, also belongs to the foreign-policy think-tank the Brookings Institution – the same institution that drew up the policy plans for the invasion of Iraq, the war in Syria and the plan to invade Iran (that is currently playing out precisely in accordance with that Brookings Institution paper).

A reversion to nationalism and self-interest across the West also would create governments more naturally sympathetic to a right-wing nationalist government in Israel (the same government that the former Israeli PM warned about during its rise, as did Gerald Kaufman) and its actions.

At the same time, a continued demonisation of Muslims (accompanied by continuing false-flag events, some of which will continue to involve Mossad – and some of which may occur under Dyncorp control of US intelligence agencies if thisrecent claim is true) will continue to enhance sympathy for Israel and hostility towards the rest of the Middle East, perhaps increasing support for Zionist expansionism (based on the ‘Yinon Plan‘ – which Israeli dissident, Israel Shahak, translated in a booklet titled ‘The Zionist Plan for the Middle East’) and continued Neo-Con activity in the Middle East (centering now on a war with Iran).

Geert Wilders has already called for complete Israeli annexation of the West Bank, while Trump has previously expressed support for the Zionist claim to seize Jerusalem and make it the Israeli state capital and Jewish national capital – in keeping with Biblical Prophecy and evangelical Jewish/Christian ‘End Times’ agenda.

The underlying reason for the longstanding Zionist/nationalist agenda for occupying Jerusalem is to seize the Temple Mount and rebuild Solomon’s Temple –an event that relates to the coming of the Jewish Messiah (and for Christian Zionists, to the Second Coming of Christ).

For a good understanding of the true nature of this Zionist/Jewish/American agenda for the ‘Holy Land’, see Grace Halsell’s article here, or seek out his book “Forcing God’s Hand” which exposes the strange alliance between millions of American Christians who long for the ‘Rapture’ and ‘Armageddon’ and believe it all hinges on the land of Israel.

This is a whole other subject, which I will avoid here – but the main problem with this idea of rebuilding Solomon’s Temple is of course that it will require the demolition of the Al-Aqsa mosque – an act that will quite certainly set off a religious/sectarian conflict like nothing seen in recent centuries (quite literally ‘Armageddon’).


Victoria Clark’s 2007 book, Allies for Armageddon: The Rise of Christian Zionism, is also a good resource for understanding the apocalyptic/religious dynamics of the Zionist/US alliance in regard to the Holy Land. Again, in this context, we should remind ourselves that President Trump (backed by the Zionist propagandist Steve Bannon) did express his support for Jerusalem being seized and made the Israeli capital, while Geert Wilders has, as mentioned before, called for Israel to do the same and to completely annex the West Bank.

Interestingly, the right-wing nationalists in Israel have sought annexation of Jerusalem for a long time – along with seizure of the Temple Mount; but have never been in a position to do so, due to international opposition (as well as domestic opposition within Israel) and the political make-up of (1) a Western world-order mostly dominated by liberalpolitical parties that, despite their general support for Israel as a state, would not support forceful annexation of Jerusalem, and (2) an Arab world dominated by strong, independent states and leaders who (until relatively recently) generally supported the Palestinians and were a threat to Israeli military ambitions.

More interestingly, Neo-Con-led geopolitics from the PNAC-orchestrated 9/11 onward have already ensured that, of the key regional states that might’ve intervened militarily against Israel in the event of full annexation of the Holy Land (or whose military power and strong, independent nature might’ve acted as a deterrent) – specifically Baathist Syria, Baathist Iraq, Gaddafi-era Libya, and Lebanon and Iran – are no longer in a position to do so. Libya, Iraq and Syria, for obvious reasons: but Lebanon is now too weak and unstable to act, which leaves only Iran (as Jordan is too loyal an ally to the US for reasons of simple self-preservation); but Iran is clearly being targeted by ongoing Neo-Con policy being taken up by the Trump administration.

The accusation also persists from many that agencies in Israel have been among those covertly supporting ‘Islamic State’ militants (for the purposes of weakening and Balkanising Syria, Iraq and surrounding nations) and overtly supporting anti-government jihadists in Syria – the former claim being made also by the same former Pentagon official who leaked the Rumsfeld/Neo-Con ‘hit-list’ of seven countries that the US would topple after 9/11.


Verifiable information concerning Israeli involvement in ‘ISIS’ (or the widespread claim that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was a Mossad agent) is tricky: and so I’m not going to state here that Israeli agencies have been involved in ISIS.

However, it is known that Israel has logistically and medically given support to Al-Qaeda-aligned jihadists in Syria. And it is always very curious when stories emerge like this one, indicating that ‘ISIS’ fighters have been executing Palestinian refugees and threatening death to anyone seen raising the Palestinian flag in a Syrian refugee camp.

*It is quite possible that the agenda that has been played out in the Middle East is part of the same agenda being sought now in Europe and the West* – or is at least related to it, including the creation of the refugee crisis via the Neo-Con/Zionist wars in the Mid-East being utilised to inflame Far-Right populism in the West via rising anti-immigrant sentiment. It’s a perfect circle.

And, having helped reconfigure the Middle East (via US-led Neo-Con/PNAC activity) to weaken or remove pro-Palestinian governments or Israel’s regional rivals (with only Iran remaining), is the plan now to remove or weaken Western and European governments or states that have expressed positions deemed to be not in Israel’s best interests by the Zionist nationalists?

This could all be seen either as deliberate design or alternatively as a perfect storm that just happens to have proven extremely useful and timely. What clearly is by design, however, is that the same “extremists” in Israel that Gerald Kaufman warned about in 2009 have been grooming operatives like Geert Wilders, Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon to service their agendas abroad.

There is only one suitable term for what this therefore amounts to – it is International Zionism.

Indeed, if the extreme right-wing government in Israel is in deep alliance with extreme-right parties and figures across the Western world, the fact that most of those parties are thought of as being ‘anti-Semitic’ (and some of them are) makes it a stroke of genius –  because it throws even those few observers who would be willing to criticise Israel completely off the scent. “No, surely not,” they say, “Israel would never support anti-Semitic, Far-Right organisations…”

But that’s the trick: let everyone obsess over alleged Russian support for Le Pen, Trump or other nationalist parties in the West and no one will talk about Israel.

A reminder then of the Jerusalem Post article from 2015: ‘A FAR-RIGHT, PRO-ISRAEL FRANCE? EXPERT SAYS THIS IS WHERE ALL OF EUROPE IS HEADING…’

A reminder too of Yaron London, an Israeli journalist, who wrote simply that ‘a worldview which supports white supremacy matches our government’s interests.’

And a reminder of what former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak said about the “seeds of fascism” in the “hostile takeover of the Israeli government by dangerous elements.” And a reminder that he also said, “And it’s just the beginning.”

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on SEEDS Of FASCISM: Exposing the Truth – International Zionists, the “New World” & the ‘Return to the 1930s’

ZIONISM and WAHHABISM: Twin Cancers of the Middle East (And Their Veiled Origins)



It is a fascinating, though rather grim, story, spanning the First World War, the creation of the states of Israel, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia, and taking in Lawrence of Arabia, all the way to the fall of Gadaffi in Libya, the Syria Civil War and Rise of the so-called Islamic State, among other things. It’s a story of long-term manipulation, insidious indoctrination, and secret, almost ‘mythical’ works of literature.
These two ideologies – Wahhabism in Islam and Zionism which is linked primarily to the Jewish religion – may seem like unrelated  entities on the surface of it…

But these two ideologies could be seen as largely responsible for much of the situation in the Middle East today; a situation that doesn’t just effect the Middle East, but as we’ve seen more and more since 9/11, effects the US, Europe, the West and probably the entire world. These two ideologies are responsible for and bound up in decades of violence, war, suffering and manipulation. These two ideologies are, it can be demonstrated, flip-sides of the same coin.

And these two ideologies can both be traced back to the same approximate era – roughly 100 years ago, during the events of the First World War.

What has been the legacy of both Zionism and Wahhabism in the world? And what is the truth about their originsTo begin with, an abbreviated history (for those of you unfamiliar) of the origins of first Zionism and then Wahhabism…

‘Der Judenstaat’, the Balfour Declaration and the Origins of Zionism…

‘Zionism’ is a complicated term to define in some ways, all the more so for the sheer amount of exaggeration and misinformation around on the web; there’s political Zionism, which is bound up in serving the interests of the state of Israel. There’s religious Zionism, which refers to Jewish or Christian interest in the state of Israel in terms of fulfilling Biblical prophecy or “divine will” (see more). These two schools of Zionism could in some instances be entirely separate; people can be political Zionists without being religious Zionists or even vice-versa (such as Christian organizations who are Zionist for the sake fulfilling perceived Bible texts).


Zionism is just as Christian as it is Jewish.

But the point is that the aim of Zionism originally was the restoration of the Jewish Homeland in what was then Palestine; a goal that was accomplished comprehensively in 1948 in the shadow of the Holocaust (though it had its roots as an international movement from the time of the First World War). Beyond that point, the continued operation of Zionism can be regarded as a political movement aimed at furthering the interests nationally and internationally of that artificially created nation and at ensuring the security and protection of the state of Israel.

Many conspiracy theorists and anti-Zionist commentators also as a matter of course link Zionism – both religious and political – with an altogether-less-reliable concept of a ‘global Jewish conspiracy’ to control the world; as that particular area is more speculative than demonstrably historical, I’m steering clear of it as far as this post goes – I also simply do not believe in the so-called ‘Jewish Conspiracy’ idea.

So if we avoid for now any pseudo-history or speculative theories, Zionism in its mainstream form is believed to have originated with Theodor Herzl in 1896; a Jewish writer living in Austria-Hungary, he published Der Judenstaat or The Jews State.

In it he argued that the only solution to the “Jewish Question” in Europe was the creation of a state for the Jewish people (this was decades before a certain someone else came up with their own “solution” to the “Jewish question” in Europe). Anti-Semitism was so widespread in Europe that Herzl saw the creation of a national sanctuary for his people as the only long-term answer.

And so Zionism was born; or at least this is the mainstream version of events – others, I know, will contest that and offer arguments for a much older origin.

Of course if we’re talking about religious Zionism as opposed to political Zionism, then the origin is much older; it didn’t go by that name, but the notion that the land of Israel had always belonged to the Jewish people spiritually or that it was promised to the Children of Israel by the Biblical God is an ancient one (and of course no sound basis for 20th century nation-building).

It was the Colonial Powers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, however, particularly Great Britain, that actively pursued the Zionist agenda under the guidance of powerful and wealthy British Jews such as Lord Rothschild, resulting in the famous Balfour Declaration. The British made war-time promises during World War I to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Although mass Jewish immigration to Palestine began occurring after the First World War, it wasn’t until after the Second World War and the Holocaust that the agenda was comprehensively fulfilled.

Read more: ‘How the Zionist Project Won Palestine…

Another cornerstone of Zionist lore is the fabled book, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, believed by some to be the blue-print for the ‘global Zionist conspiracy’; we’ll come back to that later in this post (but please note that ‘Zionist Conspiracy’ doesn’t mean ‘Jewish Conspiracy’ – one can suggest the former without implying the latter).

Despite Britain’s official actions, however, neither public nor government opinion was unanimous in its support for the excessive commitment made by Britain to further the Zionist agenda. Winston Churchill, in a 1922 telegraph, is recorded to have written of “a growing movement of hostility against Zionist policy in Palestine,” adding that “it is increasingly difficult to meet the argument that it is unfair to ask the British  taxpayer, already overwhelmed with taxation, to bear the cost of imposing on Palestine an unpopular policy.”

This disapproval of political Zionism has continued for all the decades since and is even more widespread and vehement today than it was a century ago. While much of this is also bound up in anti-Semitism and anti Jewish propaganda, a lot of the opposition to Zionism is also from respectable, reputable sources.

Gandhi wrote in 1938; “Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs…. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract.”

And contrary to the view propagated by some that anti-Zionism is ‘anti-semitism’, Jewish speakers have at various points also spoken out openly against the Zionist agenda; among them, (Rabbi) Elmer Berger published The Jewish Dilemma, in which he argued that Jewish “assimilation” was still the best path for Jews in the modern world and not the segregation and siege mentality of the Zionist state; in his opinion Zionism itself was simply resigning to the prevailing racial myths about Jews and playing into them.


Orthodox Jews protesting against Zionism.

In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution that designated Zionism as “a form of racism and racial discrimination”. More contemporaneously, in 2010 the former BBC and ITN journalist Alan Hartpublished Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, while famous atheist-in-chief Richard Dawkins said in an interview (speaking about Zionism and the ‘Jewish Lobby’ in the US); “If atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.”

This is just a fraction of stated opposition to Zionism by ‘reputable’, ‘respectable’ people; I reference all of that here to illustrate the point that anti-Zionism isn’t just the preserve of ‘anti-Semites’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’. And again, let’s bear in mind the substantial number of Jews also opposed to Zionism.

Read more: ‘Zionism/Anti-Semitism: And How It Became Impossible to Criticise Israel‘.

It couldn’t be denied, even by the most ardent Zionist supporters, that the influence of political Zionism along with many of the actions/policies of the State of Israel have, aside from the long-term oppression of the Palestinian people, contributed massively to the polarisation of the Middle East and the growth of radicalism. Aside from the destructive, toxic effect the creation of the State of Israel had at the point of inception (in Palestine itself, but also via knock-on effect on Lebanon, Syria and other neighbours), a divisive, destructive effect has continued through to the present day.

It is quite demonstrable, for example, that a longstanding US/Israeli Zionist plan for the redrawing of the Middle East map has been carried out in the last several years, toppling independent governments and stable nations and ultimately seeking the balkanisation and subjugation of Iraq, Syria, Iran and other countries in the region.

The alleged Zionist Plan for the Middle East, also known as the ‘Yinon Plan‘, was the vast strategy composed to ensure Zionist regional superiority via the radical reconfiguration of Israel’s geo-political surroundings through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab nations into smaller and weaker states.The ‘Clean Break‘ strategy also essentially amounted to the same thing. What we have thus far witnessed in Iraq, Syria and Libya can be seen to play into this US-backed Zionist strategy quite clearly; it is particularly relevant to note that Iraq, Syria and Libya were three of the most stable and independent (and non-sectarian) Arab Nationalist states and are now instead three collapsed wastelands waiting to be carved up into pieces.

Read More: ‘2016/2017, From Trump to Geert Wilders & Le Pen: Exposing the Links Between International Zionism & the Threat of Fascism in the West’…

There’s little question that the Greater Israel project that is Zionism has been a toxic and problematic imposition onto the region; all the more so because the State of Israel has been aggressively propped up, armed and defended by its Western patrons.

Something similar can be said of the influence of Wahhabism in the region.

Wahhabism, like Zionism, isn’t some centuries old, time-honoured religious sect, but a relatively new political idealogy.


The Advent of Wahhabism, the Birth of Saudi Arabia and the (Insidious) Spreading of the Message…

The modern roots of Wahhabism can be traced to Najd in Saudi Arabia and the 18th century theologian Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Far from being regarded a legitimate interpretation of Islam, al-Wahhab was opposed even by his own father and brother for his beliefs. But the movement gained unchallenged precedence in most of the Arabian Peninsula through an alliance between Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and the House of Muhammad ibn Saud, which provided political and financial power for al-Wahhab’s idealogies to gain prominence.


This alliance gave birth to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; following the collapse of the (Turkish) Ottoman Empireafter the First World War, the Sauds seized control of the Hijaz and the Arabian peninsula and a nation was founded on the tenets of al-Wahhab – the state-sponsored, dominant form of Islam in the birthplace of Islam.

My initial interest in this area of Arab history admittedly began fifteen years or so ago via the David Lean epic Lawrence of Arabia, starring the great Peter O’Toole. Through a love of that 1963 film I read first T.E Lawrence’s Seven Pillars of Wisdom and then read several books concerning the exploits of T.E Lawrence and the Arab Revolt during the First World War, as well as the Sykes-Picot Agreement (referenced by today’s Islamic State/ISIS in its ‘manifesto’) and the actions of the British and French Colonial governments in regard to the Middle East after the war.

The setting up of the House of Saud as the royal family and the establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia occurred despite the fact that agreements had been made during the war to endorse and support not the Saudis but the HashemitesIt was the Hashemite Arabs, not the Saudis, that had launched the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Turks and had been the most involved in the campaign. Yet it was the Wahhabi-inspired Saudi faction that gained the real power from the post-war situation.

The reason I bring all of this history up here is to point out that the Wahhabi-inspired Saudi Royal Kingdom that the Middle East has been subject to in the passed century wasn’t the sole – or even the legitimate – claimant to that immensely privileged, immensely powerful, position in the region.


King Abdul Aziz bin abdul Rahman al-Saud (Saudi Arabia).

And what has been the legacy of this Wahhabi-inspired Saudi Arabia and its influence? Well, the influence on Arabia itself and much of the surrounding region is incontrovertible. Aside from the fact that the Wahhabi doctrines have been a major influence on extremism, Islamism and terrorism (Osama bin Laden himself was a Wahhabist and almost all Islamist extremism, including all the Takfiri or Salafist groups, follows an essentially Wahhabi ideology), the ideologies have been methodically disseminated across the Islamic world for decades via Saudi wealth funding ‘education’ and religious literature to universities and mosques everywhere from Egypt and Iraq to Pakistan and Indonesia. Worse, the Saudi-funded dissemination of Wahabist-inspired propaganda has for a long time been spreading beyond the Middle East and into Western societies, especially the Muslim communities in the UK.

A recent two-year study conducted by Dr Denis MacEoin, an Islamic studies expert who taught at the University of Fez, uncovered a hoard of “malignant literature” inside as many as a quarter of Britain’s mosques.

All of it had been published and distributed by agencies linked to the government of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

The leaflets, DVDs and journals were full of statements that homosexuals should be burnt, stoned or thrown from mountains or tall buildings, with adulterers and apostates (those who try to change their religion) proscribed a similar fate. Women were portrayed as intellectually inferior and in need of “beating when they transgressed” orthodox Islamic codes, while children over the age of 10 should be beaten if they did not pray. Half of the literature was written in English, suggesting it was targeted at younger British Muslims who don’t speak Arabic or Urdu. The material, openly available in many of the mosques, openly advises British Muslims to segregate themselves from non-Muslims.

Read more: ‘The Decline of Intellect in the Islamic World‘.

This isn’t new information, of course. Investigative journalists have uncovered similar things on numerous occasions, while people who’ve actually grown up within the Muslim communities have been aware of such ideas and literature for a long time. Saudi-funded Wahhabist literature can be cited as a major influence (though not the sole influence) on the indoctrination of young British men alienated from mainstream society and on the seduction of men into extremist organisations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS/Daesh the world over.

Worse in places like Pakistan where, unlike in the UK, most young men aren’t privileged with access to a high standard of education or to reliable sources of public information but do have plenty of access to religious schools and mosques, many of which teach from Saudi-funded literature.

This is in fact a key point: the Saudi-funded literature and material has traditionally targeted poorer areas in the Muslim world, such as the poorer parts of countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan or Indonesia, where education infrastructure is limited and there are limited resources. In those cases, Saudi wealth is able to pay for the building or upkeep of schools or mosques – but on the condition that their Wahhabi-centered interpretation of Islam is taught and distributed.

As a result of this process taking place over many years, scores of young men grow up on this extremist interpretation of Islam, because it’s forced on them and they lack access to more sophisticated education or information. Essentially, they don’t know any better anymore.

Interestingly, it was traditionally less common for this sort of Wahhabi-centered indoctrination to take place in more developed or sophisticated Arab countries like Gaddafi’s Libya, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or pre-war Iraq. This is partly because those were all strong, independent societies, which – at the state level, at least – were more invested in a sense of national pride and cultural identity than they were in religious fundamentalism. Indeed, in places like Syria and Gaddafi-era Libya (read more about Gaddafi’s Libya here), the state was engaged in a long campaign to suppress religious extremism or fundamentalism.

That, however, has changed dramatically since the illegal invasion of Iraq, the international conspiracy in Libya and the War in SyriaNow those countries are all infested with extremists, Salafists and terrorists all entrenched in the Wahhabi ideology. The so-called ‘Islamic State’ that has been imported into Syria and Iraq is essentially a movement that has ideologically flowed from Wahhabi doctrine. That connection is further exacerbated by the fact that Saudi/Qatari arms and funding is largely behind these militias anyway, with the wars in both Syria and Libya largely bankrolled by the Saudis and Qataris and the emergence of ‘ISIS’ largely being a consequence of that.

It has been reported, for example, that Wahhabi preachers from Saudi Arabia have been in Aleppo, Syria, preaching to armed jihadists to carry out ‘holy war’ against the Syrian state.

World War I, the Wahhabists, the Hashemites, Lawrence of Arabiaand the War in the Desert…

Going back to the First World War and history, it’s worth reminding ourselves again that the Saudis weren’t necessarily supposed to be the rulers of Arabia. The Hashemite, Hussein bin Ali, was the Sharif and Emir of Meccafrom 1908 until 1917. The Arab Revolt of World War I consisted of Transjordanian tribes, along with other tribes of the Hijaz and Levant regions, fighting against the Turkish Empire on the side of Britain and her allies. The revolt was launched by the Hashemites and led by Sherif Hussein of Mecca, not by the Saudis or Wahhabists. It was supported by Britain and the World War I Allies, who used the momentum of the Arab nationalists (who wanted independence) to further the broader war effort against Germany and her allies.

2696397T.E Lawrence (“of Arabia”).

The definitive chronicle of the revolt was written by T. E. Lawrence who, as a young British Army officer, played a key liaison role during the revolt. He published the chronicle in 1922 under the title Seven Pillars of Wisdom, the basis for Lawrence of Arabia. Lawrence himself was of course was one the most fascinating and iconic figures of the twentieth century; and while the Seven Pillars of Wisdom can be questioned for accuracy in some regards, even his detractors and enemies couldn’t refute the vital role played by the Hashemites in the revolt and it is a fact of history that the British government of the time promised the Hashemite Arabs far more than they delivered after the war.

In September 1918, supporters of the Arab Revolt in Damascus declared a government loyal to the “Sharif of Mecca”. Hussein had been declared ‘King of the Arabs’ by a handful of religious leaders and other notables in Mecca. And after the Turkish Caliphate was abolished, Hussein declared himself Caliph, “King of the Hejaz”, and King of all Arabs (malik bilad-al-Arab).

However, Hussein was ousted and driven out of Arabia by the Sauds; a rival clan with whom the Hashemites already had bad history, having earlier fought against them due to radical religious differences (primarily the doctrines of al-Wahhab). Though the British had supported (and utilised) Hussein from the start of the Arab Revolt, they decided not to help Hussein repel the Saudi attacks, which eventually seized the key cities of Mecca, Medina and Jeddah.
The hope of a Hashemite-ruled Arabia was gone, though Hussein continued to use the title “Caliph” even in his exile.

burningbloggerofbedlam-kingfaisalwithTELawrenceEmir Faisal bin Hussein, king of Syria and Iraq, with T.E Lawrence second from right.

In the aftermath of the war, the Arabs had found themselves freed from centuries of Ottoman rule, but instead were then under the colonial rule of France and the United Kingdom (despite British war-time promises that this would not be the case).

When these colonial mandates eventually ended, the sons of Hussein were made the kings of Transjordan (later Jordan), and Syria and Iraq. However, the monarchy in Syria was short-lived, and consequently Hussein’s son Faisal instead presided over the newly-established state of Iraq. But these were mere conciliatory offerings compared to what had originally been intended and desired by the Hashemites; it was the Saudis who were the real winners, being installed into a powerful kingdom that has lasted to this day and shows not the slightest sign of weakening.


“The Memoirs of Mr Hempher” and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Zionism and Wahhabism have both demonstrably been divisive, destructive forces in the region (and beyond). Zionism has led to the unending plight and humiliation of the Palestinian people, as well as ensuring that the modern State of Israel is perceived in an entirely negative way and is the least popular nation on earth. While Wahhabism has inspired an immeasurable amount of extremism, terrorist ideologies, indoctrination and the toxic polarisation of Muslim societies.

We can look at the influence of Wahhabism in the world at this stage in time and legitimately call it a ‘cancer’. But what about at its root? What about the source? Given the prevalent view in conspiracy theory lore of the “Zionist conspiracy” behind the Balfour Declaration and so much of what has transpired since, is it possible that Wahhabism, which began to gain momentum at around the same time, was also something much more than it appeared to be even at the time?

Is it possible Wahhabism wasn’t the product of some quaintly rustic Arabian desert preacher, but something far more cynical?

The Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East (also known as Confessions of a British Spy) has long been regarded as a forged document; the document, purporting to be the account of an 18th-century British agent, “Hempher”, of his instrumental role in founding Wahhabism as part of a conspiracy to corrupt Islam, first appeared in 1888 in Turkish. It has been described as “an Anglophobic variation” on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.


Most conspiracy researchers know about the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was regarded as blue-print of the perceived “Jewish conspiracy”. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, like Confessions of a British Spy, has long since been dismissed by mainstream sources as a ‘forgery’ or hoax.

The Protocols has been widely translated and disseminated and is still regarded as factual and historical in much of the Muslim world, informing a great deal of the prevailing Middle-Eastern view of “the Jews” and “the Zionists”. Those who refute the validity of the book, however, cite it as a massive contributing cause of anti-Semitism and ‘Jew hatred’ in Muslim societies and beyond, not to mention the notorious book having been a recurring theme in the Nazis anti-Jewish world-view.

Unfortunately the Nazis, like many in Muslim societies today, were intemperate, incapable of separating ‘Zionism’ as a political force from ‘Jews’ as a race; the reality is that, if the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is/was a legitimate historical item, the Zionism it depicts is no more representative of Jews as a people than Wahhabism is of the global Muslim community – which is to say that only a relatively small percentage of Muslims in the world are Wahhabis, and likewise in regard to the Jewish community and Zionism.

But conspiracies of the kind we’re talking about operate at an insidious, often unperceived, level; that is to say the number of Muslims and the number of Jews unknowingly subject to Wahhabism and Zionism respectively is much higher.

But what of Confessions of a British Spy? Is it mere coincidence that both these political ideologies, both originating around the same time, both of which have ensured the long-term toxicity of the Middle East, both also happened to have books claiming to reveal their true origins and agendas – both of which were later dismissed by mainstream commentators as ‘forgeries’?

Was Confessions of a British Spy telling the truth?

Was Wahhabism founded by outside agencies as a long-term plan to ‘corrupt Islam’? Is it just a coincidence that this is EXACTLY what Wahhabism appears to have done over the course of a century – corrupted the Islamic religion to the point where it is now widely regarded by many non-Muslims as a source of evil and ill in the world?

Islam, let’s remember, wasn’t always regarded with the kind of stigma it now has, but rather the opposite; Islamic societies are historically perceived as having been intellectually and even scientifically enlightened at a time when Christianity in the West was characterised by inquisitions, torture, mass persecutions, execution pyres and utterly ridiculous doctrines and proclamations. Historical accounts tell of the brutality of Christian Crusaders and the comparative nobility of Salahuddin and the Muslim armies. The Islamic world had its ‘enlightenment’ long before the Christian West, despite being a younger religion.

At a time when Europeans were burning ‘witches’, the classical Islamic cities of Damascus, Baghdad and Cairo were centers of learning and philosophy.

The slow degradation and polarisation of Islamic societies is something that has only been happening in the last hundred years or so (as the growth of Wahhabism has done its work, like a slow-acting virus with a long incubation period). And it is only in the last ten to fifteen years that the influence of Wahhabist doctrines has become a prominent international issue.

In regard to Confessions of a British Spy being a hoax; maybe it was. But you’d wonder why someone would create a hoax document to slander a then-minor religious sect that wouldn’t have any great relevance until almost a century later…?

9/11, the Collapse of Islam and the ‘Clash of Civilisations’…

Moving on, why did King Hussein’s Western allies not help the Hashemites when they were being driven from Arabia by the Sauds after the First World War? And why, for decades, have the US, Britain, France and other world powers not made any issue over the Saudis’ funding of extremist literature and ideologies?

And yet we seem more than eager to jump in when there’s a chance to overthrow a secular leader like Gadaffi in Libya or an Assad in Syria – both undemocratic dictatorships, perhaps, but no more so than Saudi Arabia, and neither of them being a major factor in the indoctrination of young minds across the world or the spread of terrorism.

Why were the Saudis not brought to task when all of the 9/11 hijackers were known to originate from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq?

The list of curious questions goes on and on. And without digressing too much here, it should be borne in mind that one of the most prominent 9/11 conspiracy theories is the Phillip Marshall theory that the WTC attack was a US/Saudi plot and not a mere Al-Qaeda operation. Two central and recurring features of most 9/11 conspiracy researchare the possible involvement of Saudi agencies and the possible involvement of Mossad/Israel in collusion with US agencies.

Read more: ‘9/11, the Saudis and the Whole Rotten Saga‘…

Putting that to one side, however, the point is that when we look at the history of the Middle East, it becomes increasingly difficult not to wonder if the divisions, general toxicity, and the wars and apocalyptic scenarios that are reaching their apex here at the beginning of the 21st century may have been orchestrated far back in history, having always been intended to reach this point. That is the view many have of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion– that the supposedly ‘hoax’ document actually made this clear to a large extent.

The more one studies the history, the more one wonders if the truth about Wahhabism and its origins may be a similar tale; and not just a similar tale, but a concordant operation, with these two ideologies – Wahhabism and Zionism – both operating hand-in-hand to create the toxic conditions in the region that we have today.

It is worth noting also that the conspiracy hinted at in Confessions of a British Spy still – rightly or wrongly – enjoys some level of currency in parts of the Middle East, particularly Iraq, where it is considered by many to be as legitimate asProtocols of the Elders of Zion.

It is worth noting too that as much as the US is seen as propping up Israel, it is also seen as permanently propping up the Saudi regime; much to the displeasure of other nations and leaders in the region (such as Gadaffi and Saddam, to name just two).

Both the State of Israel and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia could be regarded – and are regarded by many in the Middle East – as artificial states imposed upon the region and kept in place by Western powers(primarily the US now, though originally Britain and France) for the purposes of a long-term agenda. Just as Israel is armed to the teeth by its Western patrons, so too is the Saudi state, which is currently decimating the small nation of Yemen in an illegal war and using almost entirely British or American weaponry – with not a word of condemnation from Western governments.

The perception is often inescapable that key Western governments march to the beat of the Saudi state, just as much as with Israel; and all of this being despite Saudi Arabia’s longstanding role as the key source of Islamist terrorism and extremism.

Read more: ‘When Saudi Arabia Rules the World‘…

It is also increasingly evident that the Wahhabi and Zionist states have common interests and work hand-in-hand in many regards; this can be seen for example in their shared anti-Iran policies and their shared involvement in supporting the extremist war against the Syrian government.

None of this should be taken as an endorsement of Khomeni-ism in Iran either – which has also been a negative, corrupting force in the Middle East too, though it emerged much, much later (and which also, as it happens, emerged due to British/American intervention to overthrow the secular Mosedegh government in Iran).

The 21st Century and the Bitter Legacy of Wahhabism in the Islamic World…

The influence of Zionism has been written and talked about at tremendous length elsewhere for many decades (both accurately and exaggeratedly, depending on the source), but the Wahhabi doctrines can be seen to be behind most of the extremist, Islamist movements of the passed several decades, including Al-Qaeda and now Islamic State. It would be impossible to calculate how many minds, how many young men, across the world have been indoctrinated by Wahhabi influences.

Wahhabism isn’t just an especially intolerant version of Islam – it is an ideology. So is Zionism, which is often used to indoctrinate young Jewish people (and a lot of quite stupid American Christians) to an essentially extremist, uncompromising viewpoint that deals in racial superiority and divine right.

That influence is largely invisible to those observing events from the outside and can be regarded almost as indoctrination by stealth. While no one has ever denied the existence of Wahhabism or its prevalence in Saudi Arabia, it has only been in recent years that the extent of Wahhabi material circulating around the Muslim world has started to be understood.

While Saudi religious influence can’t be cited as the sole force behind the rise of fanaticism and extremism in the Middle East and much of the Islamic world beyond, it is a central factor, along with US foreign policy and British/French post-Colonial fall-out; and if all of those factors were to be viewed operating in concert with one another and taken as onethen it would obviously be the principal driving force behind events in that part of the world.

The Khomeini revolution in Iran could also be seen as a negative, insidious force in the region too; though, again, we should also note that American interference in Iranian democratic politics is what led to the Khomeini revolution in the first place.

Even if you wanted to cite other causal factors instead – for example, populations being oppressed by various dictatorships – the argument could be made that those dictatorships have historically been propped up by either Saudi or US influence (or both) at some time or another (though not Gaddafi – and look how that ended up for him).

If we look at the historic events of the Arab Spring, some tend to forget that Bahrain, for example, had its own popular protests by civilians asking for basic rights and liberties. Those protests were crushed and received no support or actions of solidarity from the US and other Western powers; yet the Powers That Be went out of their way to assist the violent, brutal overthrow of Gadaffi in Libya and have spent years now trying to do the same in Syria and at maximum cost to the Syrian people.

Read more: ‘The Libya Conspiracy: A Guide to the 2011 Libya Intervention & the Crime of the Century‘…

Unsurprisingly Gadaffi’s Libya and Assad’s Syria were/are two dictatorships with no sympathy or love for the Saudi Wahhabists. And the same can be said for Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Even more ridiculous, the Saudis were themselves being ‘consulted’ by Western powers on what to do about the ‘Gadaffi problem’ (just as they are were principally consulted on what to do about Assad and Syria, and just as they were a major influence on the push to remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq: on the Libya front, the Saudis and Qataris were the major financial backers of the so-called ‘rebels’).

It is curious that while regimes were collapsing or being attacked elsewhere in the region (even the Mubbarak regime in Egypt), the Saudi regime never appeared to be in the least bit of trouble, despite being hated by so many of its neighboursand despite being even more oppressive than the other regimes accused of being ‘undemocratic’.

According to social scientist Quintan Wiktorowicz, even the term “Wahhabi” is often used by its opponents “to denote foreign influence”, particularly in countries where they are “a small minority of the Muslim community, but have made recent inroads in “converting” the local population to the ideology”.

Through this long-term method of infiltration, foreign nations can be interfered with, movements stirred up and regimes damaged or even toppled. Muammar Gadaffi certainly knew about Wahhabists – and hated them with a vengeance (he also made the mistake of openly confronting the Saudi Royal Family at Arab Summits). Again, let’s note that neither Iran, nor Syria, not Gaddafi’s Libya, nor Hussein’s Iraq, had ever contributed to the export or spread of extremism or terrorism against the West.


It is difficult to look at the international conspiracy that was conducted against Gadaffi and the people of Libya and not wonder what alliance of forces and interests were truly behind it and why. That subject warrants a whole essay in itself (which you can read in book form here: I spent over a year studying Libya to try to make a definitive analysis of what happened), but by the same token it becomes difficult to look at the crisis that has torn apart once-peaceful Syria and not wonder the same thing, not to mention Iraq and the rise of the Islamic State.

Read more: ‘ISIS: The Fear-Porn and Maximum Psy-Op‘…

It is an established fact that the Saudis and their satellite states have been funding and orchestrating the ultra-violent terrorists in Syria since the very beginning of that conflict (and it’s evident that Israel too has been involved in aiding the Syrian rebels); it is reasonable then to wonder if a Zionist/Wahhabist agenda is being played out in unison (with, of course, US/Neo-Con backing).

This isn’t, by the way, an attempt to all-out vilify Saudi Arabia or the Saudi state – which itself may be facing significant danger from Islamist extremism – but more specifically its hard-line religious clerics and networks. The extent to which those networks are tied to the state itself is unknown – but there is almost certainly some degree of collusion involving highly-placed people in the state.


In conclusion, it is of course beyond the powers of this blogger to comment decisively on whether either The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion or The Memoirs of Mr Hempher are both 19th century hoaxes or genuine historic items that expose the true origins of two of the most destructive, toxic ideologies of the 20th and 21st centuries.

I couldn’t – and don’t – claim to know for certain. And, given how far back in time those documents now date to, no onereally knows.

What can be observed with utter objectivity, however, is the substantial role both ideologies have played in creating the harsh, apocalyptic-looking conditions we have in the Middle East and much of the world beyond today.

Once you’ve familiarized yourself with the history, you cannot help but view the bitter sectarianism, wars, divisions and bloodshed of today without perceiving the large shadows of Zionism and Wahhabism looming over them; and that’s before we even factor in the toxic presence of extreme Shia Islam and Khomeini-ism; this is also particularly interesting in light of the fact that US policy in recent years has been to aggravate a Sunni/Shia conflict in the region as much as possible.

The bleak picture is of a societal and political cancer seeded at the dawn of the 20th century and reaching its deadliest point at the beginning of the 21st: an agenda that pre-dated the First World War and that may bring about the Third.

Author’s Note: I usually don’t bother with this, but I want to point out that multiple ‘versions’ of this article have been showing up on various websites, with other ‘writers’ claiming to be the author. They’ve reproduced this article in its entirety, without crediting me as the author and without even including a link back to this website.

Two big examples are this one at ‘ImperiaNews’ ( and this one at ‘Katehon’ (

I am generally happy with other sites re-publishing my work or using extracts – but only if they credit my site as the source of the original and including a link back to this site. Anything else is simply dishonesty and plagiarism.


If you value journalism of this kind and wish to see more articles like this, consider supporting this blog with either a one-time or regular donation (of any amount) via Paypal. With enough support, more time, energy and resources can be devoted to content like this.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on ZIONISM and WAHHABISM: Twin Cancers of the Middle East (And Their Veiled Origins)

BLACKADDER GOES FORTH & the World War I Centenary


At this time, there are no doubt scores of World War I articles and expositions being published right now. But I also want to talk about one of the more famous cultural homages to the First World War – the fourth and final series of the classic British series Blackadder; and in particular its famous final episode.

While Blackadder as a whole is rightly regarded as an absolute classic in British television comedy (despite a dreadful first season), it is probably its forth and final incarnation, Blackadder Goes Forth – the season set in the trenches of World War I – that is the most fondly regarded overall.

Airing on the BBC from 28th September to 2nd November 1989, the final series of Blackadder depicted life in a Flanders trench in World War I and centered primarily around Captain Blackadder’s failed schemes to escape the grim horrors of the front line. While the Elizabethan Blackadder II (who could forget Miranda Richardson’s singular take on the Virgin Queen?) and the Georgian-set Blackadder the Third (and who could forget Hugh Laurie’s exceptionally stupid Prince George?) are both equally as good in comedy terms, what marks out the final series of Blackadder is the grimness of its setting and the surprising level of poignancy it manages to attain at times, particularly in its final episode.

In fact numerous academics cite the series as a highly relevant influence in the modern public’s perception of The Great War, even having gone so far as to suggest that the modern, common British view of World War I is based on “the Blackadder take on history.”

Richard Curtis’s and Ben Elton’s writing essentially presents a broadly anti-war message, using the characters and situations to mock the conflict, show the war’s leaders and strategists as incompetent, even farcical, and to basically surmise the war (rightly) as pointless, particularly playing on the idea that the  soldiers suffered relentlessly in the trenches while their leaders – their “betters”, invariably the upper classes – were making incompetent strategic decisions at a safe distance, themselves sheltered from the true horrors and true human cost of the conflict.

There are no heroes or heroism in Blackadder Goes Forth, it is simply an attempt to find gallows humor (and humanity) amid the daily hellish grind of the trenches.

While some historians might refute the show’s cynical, satirical take on the First World War, many don’t; there are of course plenty of academic perspectives on the war that wholly sympathise with the view that the conflict was basically a tragic farce, waged for highly nebulous or questionable reasons and led by “fools”. 

Blackadder Goes Forth embodies that sense of tragic farce perfectly, Rowan Atkinson’s character describing The Great War as: “a war which would be a damn sight simpler if we just stayed in England and shot fifty thousand of our men a week…”

It is a bleak view that is presented across the six episodes and it never tries to romanticise or lionize anyone or any aspect of the conflict. In fact, what’s also very interesting about this series is that it never, ever seems to vilify the ‘enemy’, just as it never lionises ‘our’ guys. The implication always seems to be that none of the millions of men stuck for years in the mud or in the bleakness of No Man’s Land – whether they’re British, German or something else – are anything other than the victims of aloof and incomprehensible agencies or interests that have conspired to put them in that situation.

As for that famous final episode, “Goodbyeee”; I was only nine years old when I first saw it and even though I didn’t properly understand its meaning, I remember it made an impression on me just visually and tonally.

Much later of course when I rewatched the series, I understood the emotional weight of it and the real meaning. For a comedy show to achieve that level of poignancy is rather extraordinary.

What’s remarkable about it is that there is a certain almost cut-off point about a third of the way into the episode where all the comedy evaporates and suddenly we’re left with simply the bleak, harsh reality of the situation.

And it isn’t in the famous ‘going over the top’ sequence, but a few scenes earlier than that; specifically it’s once Blackadder has realised his final ploy to escape inevitable death (by attempting to call in a favour from Field-Marshall Hague) has failed and he will ultimately have to face that final pointless, hopeless battle with the rest of the men.

There’s something so gut-wrenching about seeing that – that final, last-ditch plan fail, that final glimmer of hope winking out and Blackadder finally becoming resigned to his fate as one of the other millions of casualties of the battlefields.

It is compounded by the arrival of Captain Darling to join them for this last hurrah; that scene too gets me in the gut, as Darling, who has spent most of the series safely away from the front line and displaying a typically haughty attitude towards Captain Blackadder and those in the trenches, is suddenly told he too must go and participate in the suicidal advance into enemy territory.

That scene where he (Darling) begs and pleads to be spared that fate, while the uncomprehending and remorseless General Melchett stubbornly refuses to understand his pleas, is so uncomfortable to watch that I marvel it even exists in a comedy show.

All of Darling’s sycophancy towards Melchett over the course of the series has ultimately amounted to nothing as he finally isn’t spared the horrors of the battlefield, but realises at last that he is regarded as being every bit as expendable in the aristocrat Melchett’s eyes as Captain Blackadder and the other pawns.

Darling’s arrival in the trenches somewhat redeems him as a character in this particular narrative while it also decisively confirms General Melchett and his ilk as the ‘villain’ of the series. Melchett’s is the cold and uncomprehending, remorseless face of aristocratic British Imperialist warmongering – and who better than a gleefully over-acting Stephen Fry to portray that? He even looks every bit the Kitchener type character of the era.


Again, it’s interesting to note in this series that the Germans themselves are never overly depicted in a villainous manner or presented as the bad guys, but rather Blackadder’s own superiors are portrayed as the both the reprehensible and most incompetent party.

As the final hour approaches, even Hugh Laurie’s characteristic patriotic glee fades and he reveals himself to be as frightened as his captain. And poor old Baldrick, who’d never even begun to understand what the war was about anyway even through his grim life in the trenches, mourns the death of his pet hamster “Neville” – another meaningless mortality to add to the millions of corpses.

As for the famous final scene itself, it is thoroughly remarkable and has lost none of its poignancy.

The key masterstroke of it – that fade into the present-day poppy field with the birdsong audio – is so evocative with its “In Flanders Fields” connotations that you’d think it was the work of some great film director like David Lean and not the conclusion to a comedy series.

The fact that it was an afterthought and not a pre-planned directing choice makes it all the more remarkable.


Combined with the very poignant, if downbeat, dialogue that precedes it, it might just be the single finest ending or end-sequence to a TV show ever committed to film. As far as the final scene or sequence to a TV series goes, I can only think of one or two that might match this (the I Claudius ending probably, and maybe the final scene of the original Twin Peaks series) – but, for sheer poignancy, there’s probably nothing that compares.

In actual fact, although the quality level is generally high through all six episodes, there are some dips here and there and it’s this closing episode that performs the final, definitive act of raising the series onto its deserved pedestal for posterity.

Though he still retains his characteristic dead-pan, bitter nature, the Blackadder of this fourth and final incarnation isn’t quite as mean spirited as in previous series and is in fact more of a sympathetic figure, certainly in the aforementioned final episode anyway. It’s arguable that Hugh Laurie and Tony Robinson both get their best Blackadder roles in this series too, as the overly-idealistic toff Lieutenant George and the profoundly daft Private Baldrick respectively. The same case can be made for Stephen Fry as General Melchett – a much more pronounced role than in Blackadder II, and likewise for the often underrated Tim McInnerny as Captain Darling.

All of the actors portray their respective characters with a huge amount of enthusiasm and sympathy, really bringing those roles to life, and one gets the sense that the poignancy of the World War I setting might’ve inspired the level of performance somewhat. Guest appearances by Adrian Edmonson as Baron von Richthofen and the late Rik Mayall as Lord Flashheart (in ‘Private Plane’) also enliven the all-too-short series (I really wish they’d had more than a mere six episodes).

And for all the fan talk over the years of what another Blackadder series would be like and what it’s historical setting should be, I can’t help but feel they could never do better than this or end on a more powerful note than this.


Posted in USA, EuropeComments Off on BLACKADDER GOES FORTH & the World War I Centenary

Webinar video of Gulen Movement 101: Session One


Gulen 101 Session One With Sharon Higgins from Tim Furman on Vimeo.

Some of the videos shown during the presentation have been deleted from this video, but you will find them online.

The Gulen Movement: “a non-transparent organizational model”

The leading US authority on the Gulen Movement (GM) at this time is Joshua Hendrick, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Loyola University Maryland. His new book “Gulen: The Ambiguous Politics of Market Islam in Turkey and the World” was published in August 2013 by New York University Press. Fifteen pages are devoted to the Gulen charter school situation and are worth your investment in the book. From page 230:

“… by insisting on the nonpolitical nature of the GM’s lobbying and public relations efforts, by maintaining ambiguity regarding connectivity between individuals and institutions, by flatly denying suspect hiring and retention practices at affiliated charter schools, by allegedly engaging in gender discrimination at these schools, and by becoming the subjects of state and federal level investigation for financial mismanagement, the GM has opened itself up to intense criticism at best, and to potential criminal implications at worst.”

Hendrick recently spoke at one of the Gulen Movement’s self-promotional conferences.

Notable comments during his 12-minute long presentation (begins at 0:01:10 min.):

  • 03:07 min.: “I am criticized by my colleagues and friends in the Gulen Movement for applying categories from western social science to explain mobilization of a Muslim social community.”
  • 04:14 min.: “… this social movement or collective mobilization, more specifically, is, among many other things, accumulating influence and power in Turkey and increasingly more throughout the world.”
  • 04:35 min.: explains that the papers presented at the conferences sponsored by Gulenist organizations are produced by sympathizers and the literature “has a certain narrative of the Gulen movement.” [see here for more info]
  • 05:16 min.: “… these conferences are critiqued by people who have a different political perspective in Turkey of the Gulen Movement as being promotional conferences of a narrative to sort of promote the Gulen Movement as equivalent to Turkey, which it’s not. It’s an aspect of Turkey and there is a number of other narratives about Turkey that compete with the Gulen Movement.”
  • 06:00 min.: “… dialogue is so, more often than not, restricted towards monotheistic faith communities… there’s also no dialogue that I’ve ever seen in the Gulen community with atheist communities, with agnostic communities, with New Age communities, with LBGTQ communities.”
  • 06:25 min.: “Moreover, right now there’s a dozen or so fellows out in the front; I don’t know if you’ve seen them. They’re holding up Turkish flags of a variety of sorts and giving a particular political narrative of what’s going on in Turkey. I would define dialogue as inviting those people in here, cancelling the rest of the day, putting them up here and having a Q and A about what’s going on in Turkey. That’s what I would say would be dialogue.”
Turkish-Americans protesting the Gulen Movement in front of the National Press Club in Washington, DC, on October 26, 2013.
  • 06:51 min.: “Those who are critical of the Gulen Movement are not a marginal few in Turkey. The Gulen Movement is as praised and supported as it is critiqued and feared, and that is something that needs to be engaged with I think… in order to understand what is the Gulen Movement in addition to its own promotion of itself.”
  • 07:49 min.: “[The Gulen Movement] is a non-transparent organizational model…”
  • 10:04 min.: (talks about how strategic ambiguity works in re to the Gulen charter schools)
  • 11:22 min.: Hendrick explains how the Gulen community is organized, as diagramed on page 122 in his book.*
  • 12:47 min.: “… the most powerful and important organizational strata of the Gulen Movement is the unaware consumer: the student at the school who has no idea that this is connected to any religious community; the consumer of products of a book or a financial product; or a piece of news because it’s in English – and there’s only two options if you are reading about Turkey – and you have no idea what the Gulen Movement is. And that is the biggest and most important, in my opinion, for the continual adaptability and mobilization of this organization.”

Hendrick was asked five of the six questions during the Q&A that followed the panelists’ presentations. At 0:48:43 min. he describes his findings for why people join the movement and how they are recruited. At 0:58:41 min. he describes his view for the basis of the organizational model of the Gulen Movement and explains:

“There’s a completely rational, logical understanding for the organizational model of the Gulen Movement. That said, when the Gulen Movement moved outside of Turkey in the 1990s, and then to much of the world in the late 90s and 2000s, it moved into other local contexts where that ambiguity does not translate in a culturally communicative way. That is, in my opinion, what’s happening here. The ambiguous, strategically ambiguous, flexible organizational model of the Gulen Movement does not culturally compute with an American public and this is leading into a public relations problem, at best, in a number of states. It’s not leading to a problem in other states; it depends on that state’s particular politics around charter schools and the privatization of schools therein. So in Texas there’s a much friendlier community than there is in Pennsylvania.”

On this last point Hendrick is being far too simplistic. Yes, Texas is a major node of Gulenist activity in the US and also home to the largest number of Gulen charter schools (45 in the state this year), but that is due to reasons that do not have anything to do with Texans’ so-called friendliness towards charter schools.

Other reasons why Texas probably ended up as a Gulenist stronghold relate to 1.) the failure of local media to fully inform the public (i.e., contrast reporting in Texas with the reporting of Martha Woodall at thePhiladelphia Inquirer, also see here and here); 2.) the Gulenists’ success with their efforts to recruit Texaspublic officials and others to be their sympathizers, people who may, or may not, have consciously agreed to serve them in that capacity (a gullibility factor); 3.) the large amounts of money contributed to Texas politicians by members of the GM; 4.) strong ties and lucrative contracts between major business interests in Texas relating to Turkey (i.e., the defense and energy industries); 5.) and more. Even the size of Texas may have been a factor. Perhaps the Gulenists recognized that their chance of being detected would be reduced if they could spread their activites across such a large geographical area. Hopefully an academic who is not a GM member or one of its recruited sympathizers will explore this topic one day.


Posted in USA, TurkeyComments Off on Webinar video of Gulen Movement 101: Session One

Expose the Gulen Movement


On Saturday, August 31st, I was one of the speakers at the “Expose the Gulen Movement” protest rally held on a farm in the rural, rolling hills around Saylorsburg, PA. We assembled less than two miles from the compound where Fethullah Gulen lives.

Gulen is considered to be one of the two most powerful men in Turkey. Those who attended the protest have a common interest in shedding light on the Gulen Movement’s activities. To many Turks and Turkish-Americans, Gulen is using his power to undermine modernity, secularism, democracy, and women’s rights not only in Turkey, but throughout the world.

This is the video of my speech about the Gulen charter schools, starting at 00:45 min.


Earlier that day, Gulenist operatives had driven around to take down the signs that organizers had posted to help guide protesters to the rally.

I also spoke at yesterday’s “Expose the Gulen Movement” conference in Piscataway, NJ, attended by 100 people, mostly Turkish Americans.  My segment starts at 40:00 min. and lasts 20 min.

I understand the conference was simultaneously broadcast in Turkey. (Note: Sadly, the audio quality could be better.)

In both talks I explain how the privatization of public education has allowed the Gulen movement to establish the largest charter school network in the US. Their 146 charter schools will enroll over 60,000 students this year. The schools’ taxpayer-supplied revenue is up to approximately one-half billion dollars per year.

Preceding me in both videos is Mary Addi, a former Gulen charter school teacher. She was interviewed in the 60 Minutes piece.

The moderator at the conference is Kaya Boztepe, ex-president of the Federation of Turkish American Associations.

The panelists seated at the table are a retired Turkish admiral and two Turkish journalists. The journalists, who have been critical of the government and the Gulen Movement, spent nearly two years in jail after being arrested under terrorism charges. They were finally released but I understand their trials are still pending and it is expected that they will be found guilty and end up with long sentences. Turkey now leads the world with jailing journalists. More about those panelists in this post.

I must emphasize that the panelists and conference attendees are extremely alarmed by Fethullah Gulen and his followers’ escalating power in Turkey and elsewhere, and the manner in which they have acquired it. Gulen left Turkey in 1998 and has been hiding out at his compound in the US ever since. However, he periodically delivers his opinions through his media organs in Turkey (Zaman newspapers) and also gives weekly sermons to his followers online @

In Pennsylvania I met a local resident who reported seeing guards with “machine guns” at the entry of the compound in the late 1990s. Locals have also seen helicopters flying over the compound. I’ve read reports about those things, but never knew if they were true or not.

Keep in mind how odd this must be — along with the emergence of two Turkish-American organized anti-Gulen protests held this summer — for the Pennsylvanians who live in what is normally an extremely quiet rural area.

Over the past two days, I also met a lot of Turkish Americans with personal stories of their own about being negatively-affected by the Gulenists. This group’s stealth strategy is brilliant. They intimidate and threaten their critics and many people have become afraid of speaking out against them.

The big question is why is our government letting this group run so many charter schools? And why are so many of our public officials allowing themselves to be courted by this group?

What I continually hope for is a time when we will have a broad, informed, public discussion about this situation.

Please educate yourself about the Gulen Movement. For instance, you can start by listening to this new Australian Broadcasting Corporation interview with Joshua Hendrick about how the Gulen Movement works (first 45 minutes; transcript also available). Please share and talk about the situation with other people you know.

I periodically post new information at but the very best source of information is

Posted in TurkeyComments Off on Expose the Gulen Movement





We’ve got a billionaire (by marriage) running the Department of Education…and she’s all for for-profit education.

You’ll never guess who runs the biggest chain of Charter Schools in America.

CIA-Friendly Islamists in Turkey.

So in a typical “kill several birds with one stone”, this operation is:

1. Funding Islamic fundamentalists in Turkey
2. Creating a slush fund for corrupt US politicians
3. Undermining America’s public school system which for all its many, many problems is one of the last bastions of democracy in the country
4. Creating an income stream for illegal, off-the-books CIA operations in the US and elsewhere.

What is the news media doing about it?


What are US politicians doing about it?


The film:

More info on this:


  1. Sharon Higgins Retweeted

    Sara Cook@saraecook

    President Trump tells me that extraditing Turkish cleric Fetullah Gulen is not under consideration, but that “we are looking, always looking.” Trump calls President Erdogan a “friend of mine,” and says “whatever we can do we’ll do.”

    • Sharon Higgins@sharonoak

      Trump says not considering extraditing Erdogan foe [Fethullah Gulen] | Article [AMP] | Reuters 

      Trump says not considering extraditing Erdogan foe

      President Donald Trump said Saturday he was not considering extraditing a U.S.-based Muslim cleric to Turkey as part of an effort to ease pressure on Saudi Arabia.

      Sharon Higgins@sharonoak

      Trump administration officials last month asked







Image result for NESTLE CARTOON



We think of Nestle as a benign company that makes candy bars.

Around the world, they specialize in convincing the poor to buy low nutrition, high priced garbage instead of real food.

A judge recently told them if they don’t want to be thought of as murderers maybe they should stop sending salespeople fraudulently dressed as nurses teaching poor women NOT to nurse their children and buy chemical formulas instead.

Lee Camp lays it out.

The whole show

Posted in HealthComments Off on NESTLE IS NOT YOUR FRIEND ‘Video’

Shoah’s pages