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.

Bookmark to:

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

Bookmark to: