Find entire playlist here

When the Americans sought to collapse the Soviet Union and bring a final end to the Cold War, they did not do it head on, but chose to bankrupt that nation by luring it into its own version of the Vietnam War–in Afghanistan. So said Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Barack Obama’s national security advisor throughout his presidential campaign. Brzezinski has also admitted that the Americans deliberately fostered Islamic militants as part of that strategy.

This turned out to be the largest CIA operation in US history; Americans funded and supported the effort of Afghanistan’s Mujahideen, then ennobled by Reagan as ‘freedom-fighters’, and of course now maligned as ‘terrorists’.

The group the Americans chose to operate through was the Hizb i Islami, an off-shoot of the notorious Muslim Brotherhood, the umbrella organization responsible for all factions of Islamic terrorism, including the likes of Osama bin Laden.

Because of this, the 9/11 attacks have been dismissed as “blowback”, but the truth is that American cooperation with the Muslim Brotherhood goes back to WWII. The organization was created prior to that through British assistance. It derives from what is called the Salafi reform movement of Islam, founded by a notorious impostor by the name of Jamal ud Din al Afghani. Afghani agitated against the West on their behalf and assisted in the famous Orabi revolt. The British were then provided with their pretext to invade to ‘stabilize’ the country, and of course, seize the all-important Suez Canal.

The Muslim Brotherhood received training and support from the Nazis prior to WWII, but after the war, control of the organization was passed to the Americans. However, instead of rounding up former Nazis, the American hired them for their indispensable expertise. This was part of an international network known as Odessa, which created “ratlines” to help former Nazis and SS officers escape. Many were brought, under Operation Paperclip, to the US to work for NASA. Others fled to South America, and Italy, where they became part of the notorious Operation Gladio, who were responsible for the violence of the Red Brigades during the 70s, and the death of Aldo Moro. And finally, some left for Egypt, where they continued to train the Muslim Brotherhood.

Documentary: Operation Gladio

Part 2
Part 3

However, when the MB failed an assassination attempt against the then-Prime Minister Gamal Adbun Nasser, he had them rounded up. During this persecution, the CIA arranged for many members of the MB to be transmitted to Saudi Arabia, an important ally, where they became “religious instructors”. The Saudis have since tried to blame the rise of militancy in their country on this influx of Salafis and Muslim Brotherhood, but the truth is the Saudis are much more closely implicated in these covert affairs.

After the downfall of the Nixon administration, the CIA’s hands were tied. So, in order to bypass congress, it was agreed that Saudi Arabia would use its cash windfall from the Oil Crisis to fund CIA covert activities by proxy.

One of the first projects was the funding of the Contras of Nicargua, who were agitating against the duly-elected Sandinistas. This became part of a larger international CIA operation called Iran-Contra, where the Americans illegally traded arms with the Iranians, and trafficked in Nicaraguan cocaine, funneled through Mena, Arkansas, under Bill Clinton’s watch, and distributed to American ghettos, setting off the crack epidemic. Proceeds of this illicit traffic were used to finance the “Mujahideen” of Afghanistan, of which bin Laden was eventually a key figure.

Likewise, we have to suspect that something deceptive is going on in Mumbai. Blame is being targeted at the Pakistanis, who have long been accused of fostering terrorism. Of course they have. CIA support for the “terrorists” throughout the Soviet war in Afghanistan was coordinated through the Pakistani secret service, the ISI.

On December 3, Outlookindia.com reported that the CIA’s station chief in Delhi approached one of India’s intelligence agencies, the Research and Analysis Wing, and passed on a fairly specific warning;

“In mid-September this year, the CIA station chief in Delhi sought an urgent meeting with his counterpart in R&AW to pass on some critical inputs. This was part of an understanding that Indian and American intelligence had institutionalized in the aftermath of 9/11. From its assets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, American intelligence had come to learn that the Lashkar-e-Toiba was planning to launch a major terrorist attack in Mumbai, which would be carried out from the sea.”

One police officer who encountered the gunmen as they entered the Jewish centre that was attacked told the Guardian the attackers were “white”, although this could mean they were paler-skinned Indians from the country’s north.

“I went into the building late last night,” he said. “I got a shock because they were white. I was expecting them to look like us. They fired three shots. I fired ten back.”

Mumbai locals say the killing spree began at the Leopold Cafe. According to a BBC report, three men walked into the cafe, drank beer, settled their bills and walked out. Then they fished out guns from their bags and began firing. Alcohol consumption is strictly forbidden in Islam.

Gaffar Abdul Amir, an Iraqi tourist from Baghdad, says he saw at least two men who started the firing outside the Leopold Cafe. He was returning to his hotel from the seaside with a friend when he saw two men carrying bags and brandishing AK-47s walking in front of them, shooting.

“They did not look Indian, they looked foreign. One of them, I thought, had blonde hair. The other had a punkish hairstyle. They were neatly dressed,” says Mr Amir.

We will have to keep an eye on the emerging evidence around who is culpable in the Mumbai attacks. But any such claims have to be measured against the backdrop presented above. If they are not, then we must assume that the distortion is deliberate, and designed to fan certain sentiments. Those sentiments would seem to be pressure against Pakistan, as part of the larger recent push by the American administration to bolster the relationship between themselves, Israel, and that “economic miracle”, India. (link)

I don’t watch TV or movies anymore, mostly. But I watched Elizabeth I: The Golden Age, directed by Shekhar Kapur. I’m still interested in that part of history, and I’ve had a nagging suspicion that there’s some significance I should be exploring in the Spanish Armada. It turns out the movie inspired me to discover some interesting clues.

The movie is a joke. It’s so over the top. Overt propaganda for British patriotism, and so idealizes the person of Elizabeth, aggrandizing her into a sort of superhero. So the acting is grossly exaggerated, and has no sense of realism.

And the movie follows the stereotypes forged by the Da Vinci Code in thoroughly demonizing the Catholics. All suspicions of the Vatican being the bastion of all modern evil aside, this is a pathological bent that is symptomatic of wholesale absorption of the Illuminati agenda.

It was farcical.

This characterization of the Catholics as villains was contrasted by a celebration of its contrary, the occult. I was at least pleased with the fact that the movie showed that Elizabeth consulted her magician, John Dee. Dee is no small personage in the history of the occult. He was supposedly responsible for creating Enochian magic, which has fascinated occultists ever since.

But most importantly, Dee seems to have been the guiding sage behind the advent of the Rosicrucians. The Rosicrucians represent the first bold emergence of the occult since the banning of the Templars, and before they eventually morphed into the Freemasons.

In the movie, Dee is treated as a gentle and perceptive sage, but whose sagacity is guided by his consultation of astrological charts. So the Catholics are supposedly bent on violence, while the occultist is the humane one, forgetting of course to mention that as a black magician, he would have necessarily practiced human sacrifice.

Back to the subject of the Spanish Armada. It was defeated because of great winds that wreaked many of the Spanish ships. Rumor has it, however, that Dee was responsible for conjuring the storm. When Elizabeth had consulted her court astrologer John Dee on how to best counter the advancing Spanish Armada, he advised her, and her admiral, Sir Francis Drake, to refrain from pursuit, because the Spanish fleet would be broken up by storm. When a storm did destroy the Armada, many courtiers were convinced that Dee had conjured it.

In fact, creating storms and playing havoc with the weather is one of the most common powers that have consistently been attributed to magicians. Consider the claim made by Empedocles, a Greek philosopher and magician, in the sixth century BC:

And all the remedies that exist as defense against sufferings and old age:
These you will learn, because for you alone will I make all these things come true.
And you’ll stop the force of the tireless winds that chase over the earth
And destroy the fields with their gusts and blasts;
But then again, if you so wish, you’ll stir up winds as requital.
Out of black rainstorm you’ll create a timely drought
For men, and out of a summer drought you’ll create
Three-nurturing floods that will stream through the ether.
And you will fetch back from Hades the life-force of a man who has died.

If you read the Hammer of the Witches, that Medieval document that exposed the excesses and conspiracy of the underground witch cult of the time, similar claims were made by repentant witches.

What is particularly interesting is that Shakespear, who flourished in the Elizabethan “Golden Age” (also the subtitle of the movie), modeled his character Propero of the Tempest on Dee. Francis Yates, the great expert on the Rosicrucian movement said,

“Francis Yates in her seminal exploration Majesty and Magic in Shakespeare’s Last Plays, comments, “Dare one say that the German Rosicrucian movement reaches a peak of poetic expression in The Tempest, a Rosicrucian manifesto infused with the spirit of Dee, using theatrical parables for esoteric communication?”

So what is this movie trying to say? As the Spanish Armada comes to its calamitous conclusion, the movie has Elizabeth look up at the sky, and sees the clouds clearing. We are made to conclude as she supposedly does, that God was on her side, and that He decided against the Spanish. But what “god”. Because, interestingly, in the midst of the battle and the raging storm over the English channel, the movie returns to a glimpse of Dee in his laboratory. He’s busy looking at his charts. So what are we supposed to conclude from that.

It’s not obvious to the untrained viewer, but to those versed in the occult, the suggestion is blatant. This movie is the celebration of a victory of occult powers over the great “evil” in the world, “organized religion”. Even the short trailer already suggests as much.

There is no need to debate with the Salafi/Wahhabis on ideological grounds. It’s their history that condemns them most effectively. Until now, it had been difficult to get precise details on Saudi history. However, I read an excellent book recently by David Cummins, called the Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia. It is the only comprehensive study of the history of SA and Wahhabism that I know of.

In any case, it’s nearly impossible to pin the Salafi down on any one particular principle. They have mastered the ability of denying everything and blaming any wayward ideas on false representatives of their movement.

They will usually even deny that they are “Wahhabis” and or that any such name even means anything. And yet, they follow closely the reformation proposed by Abdul Wahhab.

This is what is sneaky about this group. They basically insinuate themselves as merely a devout segment of the general Muslim population.

But, a reading of their history reveals very clearly that they are most definitely a sect, and have deviated from the body of the Muslim population since their founder.

This is the fact that becomes very clear in reading the book. It also helps to explain a lot about the Wahhabis and their ignorance, as well as their political inclinations.

Because, from the beginning, the relationship between the Saudis and Wahhabis has been one of tacit compromise. Monarchism, we know, is an affront to traditional Islamic practice. But from the beginning, the Wahhabi clerics agreed to overlook the ruler’s poor implementation of Islamic law, as long as they could continue to concentrate on “reforming” the masses. This is of course egregious hypocrisy, but it helps to explain the relationship that persists into our time.

What I try to point out in my book is that what the world has completely failed to recognize is that the real “axis of evil” is Britain, the US and Saudi Arabia. And that SA has not only played a pivotal role in the conspiring of the last half of the 20th century, but has been a willing participant, in what is evidently a long-term strategy against the Islamic world, or all part of the creation of a “Clash of Civilizations”, between Islam and the West.

So SA is in blatant collusion with the enemies of Islam in an attempt to undermine it. And much of the Muslim world is completely unaware of that, due primarily to the massive propaganda campaign that the state has maintained over the century, through the monopolization of Islamic literature.

But that is only part of the problem. The central aspect of this problem is the fact of that the so-called “Ulema” are a state-sponsored religious establishment (likely the only one of its kind in the world). So throughout the century they have acted to excuse the actions of the ruling family.

This explains the narrow conception of Islam that they propagate. Because they are not able to address the guts of the matter, which is the corruption of the royals, they have to compensate to by trying to appear strict in other less substantial matters. But the contradiction is that, and as controversial as this may sound, Islam is a political ideology. It’s a complete system of politics, offering an alternative to capitalism, communism or anarchism. The more trivial details were never meant to be emphasized to the extent they are by the Wahhabis.

This is how they fail to communicate the true meaning of Islam. I would say this is the reason why the Muslim world as a whole is plagued with hypocrisy. Ask a Muslim what Islam is, and he will list you the “five pillars”, but he doesn’t understand the political responsibilities that it imparts to him, and that are the true essence of the religion.

This is compounded by another fact. Essentially, Wahhab denounced the Islamic world, except for his small band of followers, as “Kaffirs”, or apostates, who had fallen outside of Islam, and therefore that it was legal to fight and kill them and seize their property, and enslave their women and children. Conveniently, the modern Wahhabis never refer to this aspect of their history.

And, to protect their ignorant citizenry from learning the true Islam from other parts of the world, they produced prohibitions against fraternizing with the “infidels”. They managed to keep this quarantine on the country essentially ever since. Through this exclusion, and by rejecting traditional Islamic scholarship, they have created a manner of dialogue on Islamic jurisprudence that is completely unique to themselves.

The problem is that the Muslim world is unaware of that. Because when the Wahhabis say “this scholar said” or “that scholar said…”, they are not referring to the centuries of Islamic legal opinion, but to their own Wahhabi tradition. However, Islamic legal thought had developed strict processes for formulating opinions. The development of several schools is testament to the tolerance that was perceived necessary in the interpretation of such laws. While the Wahhabis, on the contrary, do not have to resort to precedence, or support their arguments by past decisions, and are therefore free to distort the religion at their whim.

For all these reasons, SA has a completely unique but also very narrow and chauvinistic interpretation of Islam, which, however, they have been able to, through their fantastic oil wealth, spread to much of the Muslim world. I hope that studies like The Hijacking of British Islam: How extremist literature is subverting Britain’s mosques will help elucidate that the current conception being propagated is one that is being monopolized by a single voice, but more importantly, that that voice comes from a very minor and corrupted sect of Islam.

An authoritative new report by Policy Exchange, the UK’s leading centre-right thinktank, entitled The Hijacking of British Islam: How extremist literature is subverting Britain’s mosques, that Saudi Arabia is responsible for the majority of literature distributed in British mosques, and that that literature is rife with incitements to racism.

It is important that this is being revealed, because the penetration of Saudi influence is so thorough that even Muslims themselves simply regard it as status quo, and are mistaking Wahhabism for Islam.

But it isn’t anything like it. Very simply, Wahhabism preaches bigotry, not only against Kuffar or “unbelievers”, but also against “innovators”. In fact, this is how the movement itself started out.

During the eighteenth century, the British were making encroachments into the Arabian peninsula, but Mohammed Abdul Wahhab, the founder of the movement, instead declared “Jihad” against the entire Muslim world.

Sound fishy? Especially since the Muslim world was consolidated within the dominant political power in the world at the time, the Ottoman Empire. It’s amazing that most Westerners are completely unfamiliar with it. But that’s precisely the problem with the myth of Western civilization. It’s confused with the history of human civilization as a whole. But the West was only beginning to rise. On the contrary, it was the Ottomans who erected a formidable empire.

However, through their own corruption as well as efforts like those of the British, to divide and rule, by creating division such as the subversion of the Wahhabis, the Ottoman Empire began a long drawn out decay, until its eventual collapse in 1924.

It was then that the Saudis seized on the opportunity to gain control of Arabia, and by that, control of the great holy places of Islam, Mecca and Medina, and thereby, some pretense of legitimacy.

That pretense is currently being extended to numerous parts of the world, particularly into Muslim populations living abroad, through the dissemination of its literature.

Unbeknownst the most of the Muslim world, Saudi Arabia was created by oil interests and continues to serve them. This relationship ripened after the oil Crisis, when the Saudis were recruited by the CIA to use their massive funds to finance their covert operations. This began with the funding of the Contras, that eventually evolved into the Iran-Contra Affair, which traded Nicaraguan cocaine and Afghani opium to finance the so-called Mujahideen.

Just prior to that, however, the CIA had arranged the transfer of numerous members of the Muslim Brotherhood, who helped nurture the “Jihadi” philosophy that was used in the recruitment of Arabs worldwide to join the fight.

The Muslim Brotherhood, which, though it poses as an orthodox Muslim organization, is secretly derived from Egyptian Freemasonry, and has long been a tool of Western intelligence agencies. It’s most famous member was an ideologue by the name of Sayyed Qutb, and it is his incitements to hatred, bigotry and violence which you will find touted by various publications and disseminated through the abundance of Saudi wealth.

It’s time that this insidious campaign be exposed, and that not only the Muslims recognize how their religion is being hijacked, and return to more traditional interpretations, but also that people in the West begin to recognize what is the true source of this supposed radicalization of Islam, and to what extent it does not reflect the mindset of the majority of Muslim, let alone the thirteen centuries of Islamic civilization.

You can read more about the study, and download a copy of it here.
.

There’s a lot of hoopla these days about the possible discovery of the tomb of Jesus. It if were ever at all possible to even prove, however, it would not discredit “Christianity” in the least. But it would completely dismantle the Gnostic version that was created by Paul, which much of Christianity has adhered to for much of the last 2 thousand years. Ideally, it will lead to a rediscovery of the true meaning of Jesus’ message.

First of all, it’s perfectly to be expected that this strategy was to be eventually implemented, along with the recent assault on our perceptions of history and truth perpetrated by The Da Vinci Code, or the movie The Book of Secrets, and so on.

But the version of “Christianity” that the Illuminati claim to be discrediting is that same distortion of it for which they are themselves responsible.

I don’t mean to disparage any Christians, and I respect the light they may derive from that interpretation of Christianity. However, the evidence has suggested to me that Paul was a willing agent in the corruption of Jesus’ original message, and I suspect he may have been an agent of that family who were the prime instigators of the conspiracy, over the last 2000 years, to topple religion on this planet, and replace it with their Luciferianism. I mean the House of Herod the Great.

What is very fascinating about this family is that they were closely associated with 3 other families who were central in the origination and dissemination of Mithraism, that cult which so eventually pervaded the Roman Empire, and for which there have been numerous attempts to suggest that Christianity was merely a derivation of it.

The truth is that Mithraism belonged to the many and varied black magic rituals of the Kabbalah, ostensibly dedicated to the dying-gods of antiquity. In this case, they were purportedly dedicated to the god the Persian Magi, those sorcerers who were identified by the ancient world and the founders of all their occult doctrines, but were mistaken as the pupils of Zoroaster, the founder of Zoroastrianism. They were Kabbalists.

This is a very obscure area of history, so it may be difficult for readers to follow me, but the first evidence of the cult of Mithraism is found in the House of Commagene, in what is now Turkey, who were connected with the Herodians. The full network of these families also included the Claudio-Julian dynasty of Rome, who were emperors from the time to Caesar to Nero. Nero was the first emperor to have been initiated to Mithraism by a Magi. The other family were the Priest-Kings of Emesa in Syria, a hereditary family who for several centuries came to maintain the worship of Sol Invictus, which was interchangeable with Mithraism.

But it was also the Magi who through their astrological skill discovered the coming of the Jewish Messiah, and then reported it to Herod, who then implemented the infamous “slaughter of the innocents”. The evil mission failed. But this did not deter the Herodians in their mission to supplant Judaism with their own mystery religion.

When they failed to suppress the advent of the Jewish Messiah, they attempted to kill him, and then to co-opt his message. Their agent in this corruption was Paul. Robert Eisenmen, a leading scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has written an excellent article which reveals the numerous pieces of evidence which lean to suggest that Paul was indeed such an agent.

But what is most incriminating about Paul, the Thirteenth Apostle, is his decidedly Gnostic interpretation of Christianity. As I discuss in my book, I think the Herodians attempted to kill Jesus as a form of human sacrifice, as a way, in accordance with their mysteries, that the victim would “die for their sins.”

Paul then became the missionary of this version of Christianity, without revealing its true esoteric meaning.

And so here is the complete justification as touted by Paul:

If Christ is not risen, then is our preaching in vain, and your faith also is in vain. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ… if Christ is not raised… you are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” (1 Cor. 15: 12-19).

But, it is only Paul’s version of Christianity that is dependent on the death of Jesus. But maybe Jesus’ message was not in his death. The majority of early Christians did not believe that Jesus was God or son of God, until they were suppressed by the emerging Christian establishment, and finally by the Nicene conference of 325 AD. In fact, the Early Church, which was composed of Jesus’ immediate followers, were orthodox Jews, and were in conflict with Paul’s repudiation of the Law.

As another example, Islam, while hailing Jesus as the Messiah and a true prophet of God, denies that Jesus was crucified, and denounces his equation with God or the son of God as pagan influence. The evidence corroborates the claim.

No, Jesus was an orthodox Jewish reformer, in the tradition of the many reformers mentioned in the Bible. He tried to reproach the Jewish priesthood of his time for their corruption, xenophobia and misanthropy. He tried to remind them that the meaning of piety was not to be found in mindless and detailed adherence to ritual, but in the implementation of justice. Above all, he wanted to teach the meaning of loving your neighbour, even your enemies.

This was a great and powerful message. It is by estranging us from this supreme tenet, and inducing us to equate religion with ritual, and patriotic association to our fellow co-religionists, that the Illuminati have managed to lull us into a degree of apathy by which we simply stand by and watch them rape and pillage their way across much of the rest of the world.

The radical faction of Islam, known as the Salafi, are a movement created through British intrigue and coordination with occult secret societies, toward fomenting a “Clash of Civilizations”. And though the West is largely unaware of them, they are almost entirely responsible for the extremism that Islam is mistakenly perceived for.

Zarqawi, in his letter to bin Laden, described the Mujahideen, those who have been duped by the CIA to believe they are fighting a “holy war”, as follows: “These are the quintessence of the Sunnis and the good sap of this country. In general, they belong to the Sunni doctrine and naturally to the Salafi creed.”

Interestingly, their most recent response to challenges against their authenticity has been to admit, in part, to their Masonic origins, although apologizing that the men claimed as its founders, Masons and British agents like Jamal Aghani, and Mohammed Abduh, were not its true representatives.

But this is a feeble attempt to disguise their true mischief and service to Western powers. Instead, the Salafi now claim to be devoted followers alone of Abdul Wahhab, the founder of Wahhabism, whose service as a British agent they have yet to discover.

Islam was essentially consolidated for a period of about 1000 years, until the advent of Wahhabism. Islam developed four primary schools of legal thought, called Math’habs. These developed out of the tolerant attitude that it was possible to arrive at different conclusions based on an appraisal of the very same evidence. At a certain point, nevertheless, the legal development of Islam was eventually closed, called the “Closing of the Doors of Ijtihad”, to avoid any further controversy. That is how the schools were established at a number of four.

These various schools were not considered sects. They were legal schools of opinion, and were each considered orthodox and mutually compatible.

That is, until the 19th century, and the advent of colonialism, and the common British strategy of “Divide and Rule”, which evidently exercised its hand in disrupting this situation. According to the Wikipedia article on Shariah:

During the 19th century the history of Islamic law took a sharp turn due to new challenges the Muslim world faced: the West had risen to a global power and colonized a large part of the world, including Muslim territories. Societies changed from the agricultural to the industrial stage. New social and political ideas emerged and social models slowly shifted from hierarchical towards egalitarian. The Ottoman Empire and the rest of the Muslim world were in decline, and calls for reform became louder. In Muslim countries, codified state law started replacing the role of scholarly legal opinion. Western countries sometimes inspired, sometimes pressured, and sometimes forced Muslim states to change their laws. Secularist movements pushed for laws deviating from the opinions of the Islamic legal scholars. Islamic legal scholarship remained the sole authority for guidance in matters of rituals, worship, and spirituality, while they lost authority to the state in other areas. The Muslim community became divided into groups reacting differently to the change. This division persists until the present day (Brown 1996, Hallaq 2001, Ramadan 2005, Aslan 2006, Safi 2003).

* Secularists believe the law of the state should be based on secular principles, not on Islamic legal theory.
* Traditionalists believe that the law of the state should be based on the traditional legal schools. However, traditional legal views are considered unacceptable by most modern Muslims, especially in areas like women’s rights or slavery.[6]
* Reformers believe that new Islamic legal theories can produce modernized Islamic law [7] and lead to acceptable opinions in areas such as women’s rights.[8]
* Salafis strive to follow Muhammad and his companions, tabiin (followers of the Companions), tabiut tabiin (followers of the tabiin) and those who follow these 3 generations.

An excellent article has now been posted, however, at Salafi Publications, which not only admits, but thoroughly exposes, the Masonic and deviant origins of the founders of the Salafi movement, and their successors, the Muslim Brotherhood.

Instead, they hold to the claim that Salafism derived from the earliest centuries of Islam, from the time of the Salaf, meaning the earliest generations, and referring to the time before the development of the Math’habs. Contrary to their claims though, while it is true that the word “Salaf” refers to these early generations, the use of the term in this manner is a modern development.

This deceptive interpretation of history is derived from Abdul Wahhab, who appeared in the mid-18th century. According to his memoirs, a British spy by the name of Hempher, was assigned to the Middle East in order to discover ways to undermine Islam, with the aim of advancing British control over the region. His mission eventually focussed on the support of Wahhab, and backing him through the Saudi family, through whom he preached the British’s destructive message of Islam.

Essentially, Wahhab’s innovations made it legal for his followers to fight other Muslims, by pronouncing them “unbelievers”, under the pretense of “purifying” Islam, but in reality serving British strategy against the great Ottoman Empire. Wahhab did so by claiming that all of Islamic history, except for the generations of the Salaf, that is, from the time of the Math’habs onward, had fallen out of Islam.

Once adherence of the Muslims had been unbound from their traditional legal schools, it was possible for the British and their agents to come in with their own. And this is the purpose of the Salafi movement. The Saudis were then formally installed in Arabia in 1932, and have since acted as protectors of the oil interests of the Rockefellers, who are regarded as second-in-command within the Illuminati, after the Rothschilds. Particularly since 1973, when the Oil Crisis was orchestrated to enrich the Saudis, they have used the tremendous wealth at their disposal to advance their deviant interpretations. A notorious exponent of which is Bin Laden.

While the Saudis have been under agreement with the CIA to finance many of its covert activities, including the funding of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, and the support of Islamic terrorists worldwide, many of the Saudi scholars as well as the government are putting on a public face of rejecting terrorism and bin Laden. They claim that terrorism and anti-government activities are contrary to the true tenets of Salafism.

This is not true. At times the purpose of Salafism is to inculcate terrorism, but in general, the purpose of Salafism is to provide a new Math’hab, to estrange the world’s Muslim population from traditional Islam, and thereby lead them wherever Western interests deem fit.

You can download the article, titled Historical Development of the Methodologies of al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen And Their Effect and Influence Upon Contemporary Salafee Dawah: Part 8, here:

The NY Times reports that support for the rigid implementation of Shariah in Nigeria is down. Readers will likely remember the fiasco that occurred a couple of years ago, where Nigeria became one of the main perpetrators, along with Taliban, in the negative image that Islamic law has been receiving. Obviously a carefully calculated and deliberate defacement of Islam.

Here’s why.

Because, once again, we find the same ugly hand at play here. It’s the same devious state that has been largely responsible for the radicalization of Islam in various parts of the world, and in service of the Western aim of fomenting a “Clash of Civilizations”. You guessed it, it’s Saudi Arabia, and it’s wayward brand of Islam known as Wahhabism.

The Times article remarks that, “The Islamic revolution that seemed so destined to transform northern Nigeria in recent years appears to have come and gone — or at least gone in a direction few here would have expected.” But notice this important comment:

“When Muslim-dominated states like Kano adopted Islamic law after the fall of military rule in 1999, radical clerics from the Arabian peninsula arrived in droves to preach a draconian brand of fundamentalism, and newly empowered religious judges handed down tough punishments like amputation for theft.”

There is a still more in-depth article written by Stephen Schwartz about Wahhabi influence in Nigeria.

The article reveals that, again, it’s the usual suspects involved. Named participants in the radicalization of Nigeria are members of the Golden Chain, a document discovered in Bosnia listing Al Qaeda financiers. Though not implicated in Nigeria, the chief contributor of the Golden Chain was Khalid bin Mahfouz, who was many years in Houston TX, along with bin Laden’s older brother Salem, doing business with the Bushes.

It’s important to understand the very special role of Saudi Arabia. First of all, Laurence of Arabia was used to dupe Sharif Hussain of Mecca in combatting the Turks during WWI, only to be tricked, when the British and French negotiated behind the scenes to partition the Middle East among themselves, even though Hussain had been promised to be appointed “King of the Arabs”. Saudi Arabia did not fall within this scheming, but a special fate was reserved for it. Instead, it was Ibn Saud, as head of the extremist Wahhabi faction, who was permitted to seize power in that country in 1932. A year later, he signed a deal conferring drilling rights in the country to Rockefeller’s Standard Oil.

Oil production in that country has supposedly shifted into native hands, under the guise of ARAMCO, but in reality, the organization merely acts as a front to hide continuing American control.

In it through this relationship that Saudi Arabia both acts to safeguard the continuing monopoly of one of the world’s most precious resources, and also acting to finance the spread of the British created “Wahhabi” extremism, designed to undermine Islam from within.

At least in one media source, the Associated Press, there is an attempt to acknowledge the real support being gained by Ron Paul. This is a very interesting development, and reflection of the current state of affairs.

The media certainly lost a lot of credibility, as a result of their obscene coverage of the Iraq invasion. We seem to be living in a new day and age. I don’t know why the media squandered their credibility like that. Was it deliberate? A result of gross arrogance and incompetence? A symptom of the increasing importance of the internet?

Likely a combination of all points.

But it shows that the media still maintain a powerful influence, but that they certainly can no longer dictate what people believe.

The relative success of Paul’s campaign I think is a positive sign.

But his campaign also makes obvious the very problems that plague the responses to the emerging tyranny.

Paul has picked up rightly on many of the ills that afflict the US, but within bounds that will mislead people in the end.

He extols most of the main points of the Patriot movement, by calling for a return of the Constitution, the principles of the “Founding Fathers”, and in line with the conspiracy fringe of the movement, he is demanding an end to the Federal Reserve.

I can’t disagree with him on those points. But essentially, like the Patriot movement, his ideas are affiliated with Libertarianism, which is a movement financed directly by the same Neo-con conspiracy that manipulated the US into war in the first place.

Aside from advancing “total war”, the very premise of the Neo-con agenda is the promotion of their right-wing economics. Their most clever ruse has been to identify themselves with “Christian” values, and pass along their devious economic objectives along with other more noble principles.

As revealed by extensive research available at Media Transparency: The Money Behind Conservative Media, the Neo-Conservative movement was headed by Irving Kristol, but now his son William, through various “think tanks”, funded by several tax-exempt foundations, namely the Bradley and Olin Foundations.

More recently, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have also demonstrated that these same “think tanks” form the backbone of the Israel Lobby, like the AIPAC.

They fund TV programs like Rush Limbaugh’s, or William F. Buckley’s Firing Line, or his National Review, and other right-wing publications, and support educators and specific university departments.

Their campaign has been responsible for raising the false alarm about “political correctness”, and the myth of the “liberal media”.

For the most part, they are correct about the hypocrisy of these institutions, but they are using these accusations to hide their more devious agenda.

Essentially, the Neo-Con conspiracy is out to privatize the entire industry, including health care, education, welfare, and other social services, in order that it may be appropriated it into monopolies and mega-corporations that will enable them to run every aspect of our lives. But also to remove all regulations, deceptively called “free-enterprise”, that they may rampage through the world without restrictions about who they exploit or what they destroy.

The argument they have deceptively presented is based on Freemason Adam Smith’s delusion that greed is good. That, giving reign to the pursuit of self-interest is in the good for us all. It’s patently absurd, but as a result of the collapse of the Soviet experiment, has managed to attract increasing swaths of society.

But since Adam Smith, this has been a ploy to prevent industrial societies from curbing the rapacious appetites of private interests.

The philosophical basis of this creed is “Libertarianism”. It dates back to another Freemason, John Stuart Mill. It is perceived to mean that governments are illegal, because, inherently, no other person has the right to tell you what to do. This derives from the Luciferian maxim of “do what thou wilt”, disguised by adding the clever conditional of, “as long as you don’t harm anyone else”. Readers will likely recognize this as identical to the guiding principle of the Wiccans.

And so, everywhere, dupes of the Libertarian conspiracy are calling for an end of “Big Government”. While government was originally intended to protect them from the monopolization of power by the few, and to guarantee fair redistribution of wealth, they now blame this entity for the crimes that have been perpetrated by these same few, who have cleverly managed to usurp control of this government for their own advantage, and are thus furthering the transfer of that power.

Paul is likely sincere. And like much of the Patriot or Libertarian movements, he has been attracted to a correct assessment of the tools of control used by the elite. But this sugar-coating has helped him swallow the poison pill, leading him to act as the pied piper in calling the masses into the true hidden elite agenda of privatization.

See also: Lucifer and the Cult of Freedom

Barry Seal, “the biggest drug smuggler in American history”, while working for the CIA, was funneling the immense amount of cocaine of the Iran-Contra Operation right through Mena, Arkansas, under the watch of Bill Clinton. The purpose of the Iran Contra affair was to accumulate funds to secretly finance the Mujahideen, particularly Gulbuddin Hekmetyar, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and later bin Laden.

Again, this was the chief strategy of the Neoconservatives. So it ties into the other video I recommended, the Power of Nightmares. The whole thing was headed by George Bush Sr.

Well, it turns out Barry Seal had been recruited at the age of seventeen, along with Lee Oswald, by CIA agent David Ferrie, at a two week summer camp of the Louisiana Civil Air Patrol in 1957. David Ferrie is the fiend and pedophile portrayed by Joe Pecci in Oliver Stone’s JFK. (Mad Cow Morning News)

Hopsicker also has a very interesting movie about Seal, called American Drug Lords: Ties to JFK:

A career U.S. intelligence agent, Ferrie was a participant in the assassination of President Kennedy, and the first focal point of Jim Garrison’s investigation of Kennedy’s murder. The assassination team went by the name of Operation 40, established by Allen Dulles, which played a major role in the Bay of Pigs invasion. The group was presided over by then-Vice President Richard M. Nixon and recruited former Batista-regime intelligence officers and mob henchmen, mercenaries like Frank Sturgis and CIA case officer Howard Hunt, who would later become one of the Watergate burglars. As revealed by John Hankey, in his film JFK II, at a 1975 Senate re-investigation into the case, William Colby, as head of CIA, testified that George Bush Sr. and Hunt headed the Kennedy assassination, but said that “…they weren’t really in charge. They were just taking orders from civilians like Allen Dulles and the Rockefellers.” Colby was then promptly dismissed, and George Bush was appointed to head the CIA in his place.

JFK II is also online: