As we have seen, any categorical and metaphysical denial of the moral order will inexorably lead to radical deceptions and sometimes covert operations.
Freemasonry, as a secret society and judaizing movement, is not only part of those deceptions but is congruent with Jewish magic and mysticism. Only those in the upper echelon actually know what is exactly going on. As Jones documents,
“The deeper the adept penetrates, the more Talmudic are the mysteries revealed to him. The Rosicrusian, for example, is taught the inscription INRI which was nailed to the Cross means not Iesus Nazarensis Rex Iudeorum, but rather the ‘Iew of Nazareth Led into Iudea,’ a reading which deprives Christ of his divinity and reasserts the Talmudic calumny that Christ was a common criminal who deserved to be executed:
“‘As soon as the candidate has proved that he understands the Masonic meaning of this inscription INRI, the Master exclaims, My dear Brethren, the word is found again, and all present applaud this luminous discovery, that—He whose death was the consummation and the grand mystery of the Christian Religion was no more than a common Jew crucified for his crimes.’
“To be initiated into the higher degrees of Freemasonry, the adept must agree to become an assassin of the assassin of Adoniram. He must be willing to assassinate Christ and his representatives on earth.
“The revolutionary intent of Freemasonry becomes clear when the adept is informed that he must be willing to kill the king. Mystical Masonry is synonymous with Revolution. ”
Quoting Barruel, Jones writes,
“When the adept sallies forth from the cavern with the reeking head, he cries Nekom (I have killed him)….
“The adept is informed that till now he has only been partially admitted to the truth; that Equality and Liberty, which had constituted the first secret on his admission into Masonry, consisted in recognizing no superior on earth, and in viewing Kings and Pontiffs in another light than as men on a level with their fellow men, having no rights to sit on the throne, or to serve at the altar, but what the people had granted them.”
What a coincidence that Aleister Crowley, a 33rd degree mason who ended up having a master effect on pop music, who held “group orgies” as part of his regular rituals (including small children), and who ended up influencing sex perverts such as Alfred Kinsey, also performed similar rituals. During one particular ceremony, he blasphemed Christ and intoned his own malediction:
“Lo, Jesus of Nazareth, how thou art taken in my snare. All my life long thou hast plagued me and affronted me. In thy name—with all other free souls in Christendom—I have been tortured in my boyhood; all delights have been forbidden unto me, and that which is owed to me they pay not—in thy name.
“Now at last I have thee…the Slave-God is in the power of the Lord of Freedoom…Give thou place to me, O Jesus; thine eon is passed; the Age of Horus is arisen by the Master the Great Beast that is a man…
“I To Mega Therion therefore condemn thee Jesus the Slave-God to be mocked and spat upon and scourged and then crucified.”
Some scholars would point out that “Rosicrucianism played an important role in the formation of Freemasonry.” If that is the case, then we have another piece of evidence on our hands which clearly indicates that a marriage between Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism is almost unavoidable.
Both Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism, at their eventual root, sought to denigrate and attack Christ and this was very important during the French Revolution. Since that was the case, again the marriage between the French Revolution and Jewish movements were two sides of the same coin.
Isaac M. Wise wrote in 1866 that “Masonry is a Jewish institution, whose history, degrees, charges, passwords and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end.”
There are some scholars on the other end of the spectrum who would argue that Freemasonry played little or no part in the French Revolution, despite the fact that it was widespread and was embraced by the philosophes. R. R. Palmer somewhat ascribes to that position. He writes,
“The Masonic lodges provided a kind of international network of like-minded people. Their existence facilitated the circulation of ideas. But the lodges took no orders from any headquarters, their members never acted as a group, and their very taste for elaborate mystification made them innocuous if not ridiculous in real political life.”
The French Revolution, as we have seen, belies this claim. To reemphasize, the Encyclopedists were almost exclusively Freemasons and had one abiding principle: to attack the moral order in all its areas and to replace it with their own agenda, which they called “Reason.”
The Encyclopedists really wanted to cross the sexual Rubicon. For example, Diderot’s 1748 novel Les Bijous Indiscrets was “midly pornographic…”
Moreover, if the “Masonic lodges provided a kind of international network,” and the Encyclopedists were intellectually and politically agitating the masses and anyone who would listen to take actions in the Revolution, it is irrational and irresponsible to say that Freemasonry played little role in political life.
Jewish historian Margaret C. Jacob ascribes to a somewhat more irresponsible view of the Masonic lodges. She writes that the lodges did not seek to create revolution, but
“sought to inculcate civic virtue. They placed a great emphasis on living by laws and constitutions, on voting and oratory, and on charitable works.”
There were indeed some Catholics who were members of the Masonic lodges, and there are even some sodomites who have crept in over the years, thanks to the sexual undercover work of Wilhelm Reich.
But the Catholic Church in general has always opposed Freemasonry from its inception largely because they view it as a dark, secret, and anti-Christian activity, which only a select few are allowed to know.
In 1738, the Pope condemned Freemasonry because it was perceived to be not only anti-Christian but subversive. Of course Freemasonry does mention a form of “brotherhood” for the initiates, but the higher one goes, the more things change and the more he learns about the ideas that lurk beneath the surface.
Jacob can see that Freemasonry played at least some role in the French Revolution, but she still cannot explain the fact that the revolutionaries were almost all Freemasons. To cite again philo-Semitic historian Will Durant, the Masonic lodge
“served as a refuge for deists and as a center of political intrigue; it became a channel of English influence, and prepared the way for the philosophers.”
If Masonic lodges “provided members with an opportunity to orate, to vote, to pay dues, and to abide by rules and constitutions,” why did hundreds of Catholic priests who did not agree with the Masonic revolution have to die?
Why did “executions” actually “become a daily ritual, producing a Reign of Terror” which left more than thirty thousand people dead between 1793 and 1794? Scholar Michael Allen Gillespie writes,
“the Reign of Terror had an extraordinary impact on the intellectual elite of its time, shattering their faith that reason could rule the world, that progress was inevitable, and that the spread of enlightenment would usher in an age of peace, prosperity, and human freedom.
“The Terror convinced them that when universal reason came to power it wore a devil’s mask and opened up the gates not of heaven but of hell.”
I would slightly disagree with Gillespie here. The Reign of Terror was not based on reason but on essentially Masonic principles, which ended up using universal reason as a pretension.
As we have already seen, the philosophes who were committed to the Enlightenment project were overwhelmingly freemasons—and Voltaire was no exception.
After he was initiated into the Nine Sisters Lodge of the Freemasons, the chairman of the lodge made a speech with respect to Voltaire’s initiation, saying,
“We swear to help our brothers, but you have been the founder of an entire colony which adores you and which overflows with your benefactions…You, much beloved brother, have been a Freemason before you received the degree…and you have fulfilled the obligations of a Freemason before you promised to keep them.”
In other words, according to the chairman, Voltaire’s revolutionary ideology was consistent with Freemasonry even when Voltaire was not aware of it. In fact, Voltaire constantly received positive accolades from the Lodge. Why?
Because Voltaire, according to Will Durant’s own assessment, was weakening the Church’s political power. And this was fully congruent with the Masonic lodge.
Some, like Jacques-Rene Hebert, “followed Voltairean rationalism, encouraged the desecration of churches, and set up the public worship of the Goddess of Reason” by 1793.
Eric Hobsbawn can talk about a “fairly coherent social group” that gave the French Revolution “effective unity,” including Freemasonry, and moves on to say, “If there was a flourishing religion among the eighteenth century elite, it was rationalist, illuminist and anti-clerical Freemasonry.”
According to this premise, it simply does not make sense to say that Freemasonry had no effect on the French Revolution. In the end, Jacob had to admit that Freemasonry had some role in the revolution:
“Unquestionably, the Masonic lodges and prominent Freemasons did play a political role in the revolution, but it would be naïve to imagine that they conspired to bring it about. History simply does not work that way.
“Yet…it would be naïve to imagine that Masonic lodges…possess no discernible political ideology and interest.”
If they did not conspire to bring it about, who was the culprit? Or does Jacob try to tell us that the revolution happened by itself?
When the French Revolution broke out, the Masonic Encyclopedists who presumably preached “Reason” and Liberte, L’egalite, and Fraternite had to persecute the Catholics who opposed the Revolution in the first place.
This “fraternity,” as it turned out, was only all-inclusive so long that one did not stand in opposition to the fraternity. Barruel had to flee to London in order to save his skin.
About 8,000 to 10,000 Catholics also had to take refuge in Protestant England. Both Edmund Burke and King George III made great efforts to rescue Catholics in France during that period.
Jacob treats Barruel’s work as “paranoia,” but cannot help to use it as a way to “approach” the study of “European history.”
Freemasonry seems to have lain dormant after the French Revolution among intellectual revolutionaries, but it got its reprisal in the twentieth century—this time during World War II. One individual who was doing research on this very subject was noted French historian Bernard Fay.
Fay was educated at Harvard, became a professor of history at College de France, and eventually became the general administrator of the Bibliotheque Nationale.
Fay began to search the archives in order to give a detailed account of Freemasonry and how it was largely the backdrop of the French Revolution. Not only that, Fay saw that Freemasonry was having a come-back in his own time. Fay was what one might call an “archivist,” that is, he believed in documented evidence.
Fay’s account here is taken from Barbara Will. Building her argument from Jacques Derrida’s premise, Will faults Fay for what Derrida called “archive fever.”
Summoning Derrida to build her case proves to be detrimental to Will’s cause, because Derrida did not believe in objective truth. For Derrida, archives can never lead to truth—on the contrary, archives “work against stable or positivistic knowledge or historical meaning.”
“The archive,” Derrida tells us, “always works…against itself.” If they always do, then why do we have them? Well, for Derrida, archivists are compulsively “sick” because they seek knowledge in archives. Once again following Derrida’s premise, Will writes,
“And as someone who staked his entire career on archival knowledge, Bernard Fay also succumbed to the fever that would work against this knowledge, leading his career down ever more paranoid and delusional paths.”
The only way that Derrida could come up with these ridiculous ideas was because he was following the ideological tenets of postmodernism, which is Jewish in its intellectual orientation. As such, he had to dismiss any document that might lead one closer to the truth.
As Jones puts it, “Political correctness was the final expression of the Talmudic redefinition of American discourse which had begun in the ‘70s under the direction of Jewish critical theories like [Stanley] Fish and Derrida.”
After Derrida delivered a lecture at Johns Hopkins University on deconstructionism, postmodernism began to take shape not only in academia but in culture as well. Lawrence D. Kritzman, Brian J. Reilly, and Malcolm DeBevoise tell us,
“With this paper [La structure, le signe, et le jeus dans le discourse des sciences humaines] the incipient movement was effectively launched: for the first time the elements of the poststructuralist program were laid out as part of an inquiry that was utterly different from the one that had prevailed under the name of structuralism in the strict sense.”
Derrida was a revolutionary, and he made no apology when he wrote:
“It is true that my interest in literature, diaries, journals in general, also signified a typical, stereotypical revolt against the family.
“My passion for Nietzsche, Rousseau, and also Gide, whom I read a lot at that time, meant among other things: ‘Families, I hate you.’ I thought of literature as the end of the family, and of the society it represented, even if that family was also, on the other hand, persecuted.”
Literature, then, was for Derrida a weapon with which he could attack ultimate truth. He put it quite bluntly:
“If the philosophical question seemed at least as necessary to me, this is perhaps because I had a presentiment that there could be sometimes an innocence or irresponsibility, or even an impotence, in literature.
“Not only can one say everything in literature without there being any consequences, I thought, no doubt naively, but at bottom the writer as such does not ask the question of the essence of literature.”
If postmodernism/relativism is true, then there is no need for historical scholarship, for any “text” is relative to all other “texts,” though they may pronounce completely contradictory statements.
Furthermore, since no ultimate truth exists in the end, one statement is as valid as another. Consistent with this frame of mind is the idea that there is no need to sift fact from fiction, truth from error; astronomy is no better than astrology, chemistry is no better than alchemy.
Will would have made a much more historically rigorous point had she not relied on Derrida’s self-defeating philosophy to draw some of her conclusions. As Professor R. V. Young of North Carolina State University put it, “Rather than a frontal assault on metaphysics, Derrida proposes subversion from within.”
Similarly, late French philosopher Maurice Blanchot implicitly argued that Derrida’s Deconstructionism is rabbinic in its ideological orientation. This led scholar Sarah Hammerschlag to say, “This rabbinic reading could be intended to remind Derrida that he may be closer to Judaism that he would expect.” Hammerschlag moves on to declare that
“Judaism, as it signifies in modernity, develops a particular political and ethical importance in his thought: it appears as one of the key sites through which he highlights his concerns with the problems of negotiating between political/philosophical claims to universality and structures of exclusivity…being Jewish becomes the very site at which the very possibility of such an opposition can be deconstructed.
“Moreover, he sees being Jewish as the key site and the source for deconstruction itself: ‘Being-Jewish would be more than and the other than the simple strategic or methodological lever of a general deconstruction, it would be the experience of deconstruction itself, its chance, its menace, its destiny, its earthquake.”
Wills writes that Fay began to cooperate with Nazi Germany, which eventually took the lives of hundreds of Freemasons. Yet whenever Fay declares something that seems to contradict her thesis, she doesn’t believe him. She writes,
“Fay would later claim that he hid the volume [archival documents about freemasonry] from Nazi seizure; at his trial, he even brought forward evidence from a French Freemason thanking Fay for having ‘done excellent work’ in saving Masonic archives from the occupying forces.”
Yet even then, Will declares that “it is also interesting to speculate about other motives driving Fay—this historian of Freemasonry turned ideologue and inquisitor—to hoard Masonic archives in his private home.”
In order to make this point, Will admits that she had to step “outside of history for a moment.”
It is conceivable that Nazi Germany would persecute Freemasons, for Hitler himself was anti-mason. Propaganda against Freemasonry was quite rampant in the Third Reich.
Put simply, both Derrida and Will are not interested in archival documents, even though Will quotes some archival documents in her book (only to prove her points), which make the story even more ambiguous. According to Will’s account,
“According to information presented at Fay’s 1946 trial, six thousand Freemasons were directly questioned or placed under surveillance over the course of the war, 989 were deported to concentration camps, and 549 were killed, either by firing squad or through deportation.”
She admits, however, “No document exists that directly links Fay to these deportations or killings; whatever involvement he had in the system that facilitated these actions was steps removed from their terrible final outcome.”
Some would tend to lean toward the view that Fay was an anti-Semite, but Will again writes,
“Fay had enough Jewish friends before and during the war—including, of course, Gertrude Stein…The list of Fay’s Jewish supporters at his trial reinforces this claim, as do attestations by even the most critical of his colleagues. One Jewish friend, Denise Aime Azam, was vocal enough in her support of Fay to call him her protector during the war.”
Will agrees that Fay was not an anti-Semite. But Will seems to find it puzzling that Masonic members around that time were largely Jews, and Fay was radically anti-Masonic. As a result, Will declares,
“Beyond a few chosen exceptions, the Jews and their unhappy fate mattered little to Bernard Fay. They were casualties of the ‘cleaning-up operations’ required to purge France of a century and a half of democratic decadence.”
The French Revolution and its bloody aftermath clearly indicated that Winston Churchill’s bold declaration was more plausible than he ever imagined, that the West ultimately faces two opposite but powerful worldviews: the divine and the diabolical.
The diabolical worldview is based on the rejection of the divine plan, and both are at war with each other. This ideological and cosmic war, which historically began at the foot of the cross, will continue until the end of history, and we just happened to be in middle of this war.
Moreover, the diabolical worldview has a long list of devoted disciples. As Churchill himself put it,
“From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.
“It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”
Churchill also said that
“Of all the tyrannies in history, the Bolshevist tyranny is the worst, the most destructive, and most degrading. Bolshevism is not a policy, it is a disease…
“Civilization is being completely extinguished over gigantic areas while Bolsheviks hop and caper like troops of ferocious baboons amid the ruins of cities and the corpses of their victims.”
At the metaphysical and categorical level, it is either the implications of Logos or Talmudic/diabolic thought that will eventually dominate the West.
We are seeing this in pop music as well, where the principles that make up the Illuminati and Freemasonry have already been embraced by people like Jimmy Page, late Jim Morrison of the Doors, David Bowie, Sting, Daryl Hall, Marilyn Manson, Prince, late Michael Jackson, Jay Z, Kanye West, etc. New Masonic puppets like Beyonce, Katy Perry, and Rihanna are no exceptions.
In the political realm, the subversion of the West has been going on in a subliminal way. For example, neo-Bolsheviks subvert America and in the process America, through Wall Street bankers and the CIA, began to subvert other countries and even America with drugs, torture, and other destructive means.
Countries such as Guatemala, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan were and perhaps still are, in the words of Peter Dale Scott of the University of California, “CIA clients.”
Talmudic/Zionist/neo-Bolshevik thought represents the end of the West and every reasonable person must stand in opposition to its political and historical ideology precisely because it leads to bondage, double standard, and, in one word: chaos.
This has created a stir in countries such as France and Jewish journalist Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times has lamented that despite the fact that the Zionist establishment has isolated people like Dieudonne, the anti-Zionist movement is garnering millions of support across the globe.
Rubin, who struggled mightily to string two rational thoughts together in her article, accused Dieudonne of “inventing an inverted Nazi salute known as the quenelle to satirize the French elite,” but Rubin cannot explain the fact that at this current moment, the Zionist establishment has allied with Fascists and neo-Nazis to destroy Russian forces in Ukraine.
Once again the current situation in Ukraine is a classic example of how Jewish revolutionary movements seek to subvert the West. Journalist Patrick L. Smith rightly declared that
“You need a machete these days to whack through the thicket of misinformation, disinformation, spin, propaganda and straight-out lying that daily envelopes the Ukraine crisis like kudzu on an Alabama telephone pole. But an outline of an outcome is now faintly discernible.”
It should not be a surprise that “A new poll suggests Americans have very little appetite for any real involvement in the crisis in Ukraine.”
But, according to a new order from Washington entitled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine,” we learn that the government can seize the assets of “any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States” if he/she dares to criticize our government’s involvement in Ukraine.
How could that happen in America? Well, the neo-Bolsheviks such as Max Boot and Michael Austin have wasted no time in screaming their lungs out for more conflict with Russia. Tom Rogan, a neocon mush-head, has declared without any serious thought that
“We have to do what we should have done at first: Provide troops to guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty.”
For neo-Bolshevik Charles Krauthammer, the United States ought to stop Russia in the following ways (and don’t forget, the American taxpayers will provide the funds):
- Send the chairman of the Joint Chiefs to the Baltics to arrange joint maneuvers.
- Same for the four NATO countries bordering NATO — Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania.
- Urgently revive the original missile-defense agreements concluded with Poland and the Czech Republic before Obama canceled them unilaterally to appease Russia.
- Extend the Black Sea maneuvers in which the USS Truxtun is currently engaged with Romania and Bulgaria. These were previously scheduled. Order immediate — and continual — follow-ons.
- Declare that any further Russian military incursion beyond Crimea will lead to a rapid and favorable response from NATO to any request from Kiev for weapons. These would be accompanied by significant numbers of NATO trainers and advisers.
It looks like Washington was paying attention to Krauthammer, as they are beginning to wage a frontal attack against Russia. Did you know that a cyber weapon has already infected computer networks in Ukraine?
Did you know that the Financial Times itself compared the act with Stuxnet, the malware that was developed by the Zionists in Israel and America which eventually bugged Iran’s computers? This program
“could shut off civilian power or water supplies, cripple banks or even blow up industrial sites that depend on computer-controlled safety programmes. The malware has infected networks run by the Kiev government and systemically important organisations. Lithuanian systems have also been disproportionately hit by it.
“Ouroboros has been in development for nearly a decade and is too sophisticated to have been programmed by an individual or a non-state organisation, according to the applied intelligence unit at BAE Systems, which was the first to identify and analyse the malware.”
We know for certain that Stuxnet was created by the U.S. and Israeli governments, and it took millions of dollars to get it going. Moreover, we know that Russia or Iran did not attack Ukraine using malwares. So who is the culprit? You be the judge.
Did you know that U.S. assistant secretary of state for European and Asian Affairs was handing out pastries to anti-government protesters in Kiev?
Did you know that Israel has also been involved in the situation in Ukraine? Did you know that hundreds of American soldiers have already been patrolling Kiev? Did you know that the U.S. sent its warship Destroyer to the Black Sea? Yet, as Israel Shamir points out, it is Russia that is the invader, not the U.S.!
How would you feel if a representative of North Korea or China or Russia or Iran or Japan starts passing out pastries to anti-government protesters in Washington? Would not the government go up in flame and perhaps declare war against that country?
Churchill again noted in 1920 that “the most passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people” by the Bolsheviks. We are currently repeating history.
The people who wanted to overthrow the political order in Russia in 1917 have been dead for a long time, but their ideological grandchildren want to finish the job they had started.
Twentieth-century neoconservatism is in many ways a series of unfortunate events which inexorably lead to the ideological foundation of the French Revolution and then Bolshevism: blood, torture and murder (including sexual murder and sodomy) in the metaphysical and practical sense.
Because of the neoconservative ideology, at least 360,000 U.S. veterans probably have brain injuries. All of those horrors have happened in the name of “democracy.”
But if anyone challenges that form of “democracy,” he or she is to be labeled a threat and sometimes even a terrorist. Sarah Harrison of the Guardian for example cannot even return to England (the land of her birth) because she used to work with Edward Snowden and Julian Assange.
In that sense, neoconservatism and the Masonic ideology of the French revolution converge in a subtle way, since both worldviews end up producing the same fruit and since both worldviews were being manipulated by people of identical ideologies.
Bolshevism was just an updated version of the subversive ideology which Jewish revolutionaries were spreading across the Soviet Union. And neoconservatism is another “clean” version of Bolshevism. The grandchildren of the Bolshevik revolution have been proposing the most passions of revenge in the belly of the Russian people at this present time.
Those grandchildren can deliver their neo-Bolshevik message through the entire media outlets (most specifically in the Washington Post, the New York Times, TV chat shows, etc) almost simultaneously. Paul Wolfowitz for example used the Washington Post to say that the U.S. should arm the Syrian rebels/jihadists.
Many of the grandchildren of the Bolshevik Revolution now work at think tanks such as National endowment for Democracy (NED), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institution, etc. As journalist Robert Parry points out,
“Neocons played key behind-the-scenes roles in instigating the Feb. 22 coup that overthrew a democratically elected president with the help of neo-Nazi militias; the neocons have since whipped Official Washington into a frenzy of bipartisan support for the coup regime; and they are pushing for a new Cold War if the people of Crimea vote to leave Ukraine and join Russia.
“A few weeks ago, most Americans probably had never heard of Ukraine and had no idea that Crimea was part of it. But, all of a sudden, the deficit-obsessed U.S. Congress is rushing to send billions of dollars to the coup regime in Kiev, as if the future of Ukraine were the most important issue facing the American people.”
As a matter of fact, snipers who killed both civilians and police officers in Ukraine were actually paid by the U.S. The CIA also has a hand in which the situation in Ukraine is loused up.
Moreover, “Russia has received numerous requests from Ukrainian civilians to protect them from radicals, including those from the Right Sector group, and has promised consider them, a Russian Foreign Ministry statement says.”
This has sent shockwaves across the Western world precisely because it is the most blatant double standard ever concocted. Paul Craig Roberts has called it “the stench of American hypocrisy.” For example, when John Kerry and others denounced Russia for meddling in Ukraine, Seumas Milne of the Guardian powerfully pointed out,
“That the states which launched the greatest act of unprovoked aggression in modern history on a trumped-up pretext – against Iraq, in an illegal war now estimated to have killed 500,000, along with the invasion of Afghanistan, bloody regime change in Libya, and the killing of thousands in drone attacks on Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, all without UN authorisation – should make such claims is beyond absurdity.
“It’s not just that western aggression and lawless killing is on another scale entirely from anything Russia appears to have contemplated, let alone carried out – removing any credible basis for the US and its allies to rail against Russian transgressions. But the western powers have also played a central role in creating the Ukraine crisis in the first place.
“The US and European powers openly sponsored the protests to oust the corrupt but elected Viktor Yanukovych government, which were triggered by controversy over an all-or-nothing EU agreement which would have excluded economic association with Russia.
“In her notorious ‘fuck the EU’ phone call leaked last month, the US official Victoria Nuland can be heard laying down the shape of a post-Yanukovych government – much of which was then turned into reality when he was overthrown after the escalation of violence a couple of weeks later….
“Fascist gangs now patrol the streets…. Neo-Nazis in office is a first in post-war Europe. But this is the unelected government now backed by the US and EU. And in a contemptuous rebuff to the ordinary Ukrainians who protested against corruption and hoped for real change, the new administration has appointed two billionaire oligarchs – one who runs his business from Switzerland – to be the new governors of the eastern cities of Donetsk and Dnepropetrovsk.
“Meanwhile, the IMF is preparing an eye-watering austerity plan for the tanking Ukrainian economy which can only swell poverty and unemployment.”
Yet in a subtle attempt to box people to say that Putin’s actions are quite similar to those of Hitler, here is what a Poll does:
“Do you think Vladimir Putin’s actions in Crimea today are similar to what Hitler did in Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938? Would you consider it ‘appeasement’ for the U.S. and other western democracies not to take strong action to defend Ukraine?”
These are some of the loaded questions which actually give the respondent no chance to think outside the neo-Bolshevik/Zionist matrix. It’s like asking a person, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency declares that Putin has been extremely friendly to Jewish groups and organizations in Russia, but that does not stop the neo-Bolsheviks to call him every name of the book.
They don’t like Putin probably because he made the historical point last year that 80-85 percent of the first Soviet government was Jewish.
Since then, Zionist rabble rousers have tried very hard to oust. But again there is more to the conflict than meets the eye and ear. As Conn halliman points out,
“WikiLeaks has revealed a secret cable describing a meeting between French and American diplomats that suggests that [a plan to blackmail Russia]has been in the works since at least 2009.
“Titled ‘A/S Gordon’s meeting with policy makers in Paris,’ the cable summarizes a Sept. 16, 2009 get-together between Philip Gordon, then assistant U.S. Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, and French diplomats Jean-David Levitte, Damien Loras, and Francois Richier. Gordon is currently a special assistant to President Obama on the Middle East.
“While the bulk of the cable covers an exchange of views concerning Iran, the second to last item is entitled ‘NATO’s enlargement and strategic concept.’ At this point Levitte, former French ambassador to the US from 2002 to 2007, interjects that
“‘[French] President [Nicholas] Sarkozy was ‘convinced’ that Ukraine would one day be a member of NATO, but that there was no point in rushing the process and antagonizing Russia, particularly if the Ukrainian public was largely against membership.’”
“Gordon goes on to paraphrase Levitte’s opinion that, ‘the Bucharest summit declaration was very clear that NATO had an open door and Ukraine and Georgia have a vocation in NATO.
“Levitte is currently a fellow at the conservative Brookings Institute.”
Keep in mind that the Brookings Institute is a neoconservative think tank funded by the Israeli mogul Haim Saban, who declared that “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel.” Saban, who has a “remarkable ability to cultivate, charm, and manipulate people,” had closed ties with Israeli officials such as Shimon Peres.
“At a conference last fall in Israel, Saban described his formula. His ‘three ways to be influential in American politics,’ he said, were: make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets.
“In 2002, he contributed seven million dollars toward the cost of a new building for the Democratic National Committee—one of the largest known donations ever made to an American political party. That year, he also founded the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C.
“He considered buying The New Republic, but decided it wasn’t for him. He also tried to buy Time and Newsweek, but neither was available. He and his private-equity partners acquired Univision in 2007, and he has made repeated bids for the Los Angeles Times.
“By far his most important relationship is with Bill and Hillary Clinton. In 2002, Saban donated five million dollars to Bill Clinton’s Presidential library, and he has given more than five million dollars to the Clinton Foundation.
“In February, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a major policy address at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, co-sponsored by the Saban Center.”
Somehow the neo-Bolshevik world expects Russia to stay silent on this Ukraine crisis. As researcher Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich points out, Russia and China seem to pose a threat to global domination, and the shadowy figures have to curb both countries in order to propound world domination.
And you may want to hold your breath: Sarah Palin thinks that the United States should nuke Russia!
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke,” said Palin. She continued to propound the dumb idea that the U.S. can no longer play the nice guy with Russia because it allowed some “very, very bad dudes [to] gain ground.”
For Dick Cheney, the U.S. should start training the Ukrainians militarily! Max Boot of Commentary added that “We need to make clear that Russia will pay a price for transgressing the most basic norms of international conduct.” Similarly, Condoleezza Rice, who should know better by now, recently wrote in the Washington Post,
“We should reach out to Russian youth, especially students and young professionals, many of whom are studying in U.S. universities and working in Western firms. Democratic forces in Russia need to hear American support for their ambitions. They, not Putin, are Russia’s future.”
In order to propound the same old ridiculous idea, Rice, who has monkeyed with the lives of precious people in the Middle East and decent Americans in the past, continues to argue that if Iraq and Syria have been flooded by “extremists,” it is because the United States has failed to deal rigorously with “dictators like Bashar al-Assad,” along with his allies such as Iran and Russia.
Rice has probably learned this lie from the Jewish neoconservatives, who are “tightly allied with Israel” and who actually sent a letter to Obama saying that Washington ought to overthrow Assad and substitute a Zionist puppet in his stead.
Here are some of the names of the Jewish and other neoconservatives who sent the letter to the president: Max Boot, Paul Bremer, Elizabeth Cheney, Eric Edelman, Jamie Fly, John Hannah, William Inboden, William Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Clifford May, Robert McFarlane, Martin Peretz, Danielle Pletka, John Podhoretz, Stephen Rademaker, Karl Rove, Randy Scheunemann, Dan Senor, James Woolsey, Dov Zakheim, and Radwan Ziadeh.
Rice’s oxymoronic behavior and sycophantic babbling have never ceased to amaze me. Many decent people in Iraq cannot even perform a decent wedding ceremony without being blasted by car bombers. I guess she would call that “democracy.”
Recently, the Syrian rebels/jihadists have captured nearly one hundred civilians, including women and children. Last month, 12 Syrian nuns were abducted in a town where the rebels were working. But according to Rice’s logic, Assad has to be blamed for that, too.
As former CIA officer and scholar Paul R. Pillar has pointed out,
“Al-Qaeda in Iraq was born, nor reborn, as a direct consequence of the Bush administration’s war in Iraq. It didn’t exist there before, and since the U.S. invasion it never went away. Now, in the form of the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS), it has become as well the most extreme participant in the violence in Syria.”
Has the intellectual caliber of the so-called Republican Party sunk that low? If the U.S. economy is really “screwed up,” to use Paul Craig Roberts’ words, if the “middle class is dying,” as economist Samuel Rines put it, how is it that these people still want perpetual wars when the debt exceeds $ 100 trillion?
Michelle Bachmann recently declares in her speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that “our movement at its core is an intellectual movement. We are based on the greatest ideas ever conceived in the mind of man.”
Palin, Bachmann, and Rice cannot have a rational and coherent thought on their heads because they have been paid big bucks to say dumb things. Aren’t they all New York Times bestsellers—selling lies at the expense of the American people?
Moreover, do these people understand that “ethnic Russians account for about 20 percent of Ukraine’s population and nearly 60 percent of the population in Crimea”?
In other words, if Ukraine goes down the tube, Russia will soon be next. Therefore Putin would be a complete idiot if he stays silent on the situation. The United States had already imposed an embargo on Russian officials who got involved in the confrontation.
To sum up, the Masonic ideology which operated behind the scene in the French Revolution has taken a new garb in the twenty-first century, but the end result is always blood and sexual ideology under the name of “democracy” and “freedom.” Perhaps St. Peter was right when he stated thousands of years ago:
“While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage” (2 Peter 2:19).
1] For a study on Jewish mysticism, see for example Peter Schafer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011); Gideon Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
 Paul Craig Roberts, How America Was Lost: From 9/11 to the Police/Warfare State (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2014), 105-107.
Dr. Omar Zaid Newsletter
Join the newsletter to receive the latest updates in your inbox.