Print article -

Email article link to friend(s) -

Facebook -

Soon all the people in the world will be ruled by bureaucrats accountable only to the wealthy nihilists whose power lust employs them. Flags will continue to wave, the patriotism and self-sacrifice of men will be exploited as the “war on terror” builds the bridge to an internationalized world system. In this brave new world of collapsing economies and falling birthrates, borders won’t matter as American citizens are discovering via their government’s “comprehensive immigration reform” plans, the submersion of America in a North American Union and the nation’s increased integration with the Communist and German supremacists who run the European Collective Security System (EU).

How does it work? When Germany and the Vatican destroyed Yugoslavia (after pre-agreement between Russia and Germany in 1990) and brought Croatia and Slovenia into the German economic system, Anglo-America, in the form of NATO rushed in, guns a-blazing to have its hand in the residue, a NATO-EU protectorate now absorbed into the Eurasian system. “The freedom of small nations” is a bitter joke to those targeted by these “humanitarian interventions” (Tony Blair, April 1999); a joke shared by Bush, Putin and Germany’s orcs in Brussels.

The Clintons liked to talk about the bridge to the New World. We are living it: the War on Terror where the enemy is vague and victory is not an option.

It is a “Bridge Game” for Bridge requires only three players (the “three-bloc world”) with the fourth being an automatic responder. But in our virtual but still bloody world, the dummy has its own agenda for world rule. It can’t win but its lusts are exploited nimbly by the three main players to the detriment of all humans. The dummies are fine with that: they get money, guns, and renewal of their old genocidal agenda of conquest.

We all are running out of time so let’s briefly identify the players and explain why they all share two things: a lust for power and a special hatred for Israel and the Jewish people living there.

Anglo-America

In the 1880s, alarmed by long-term structural decline of the British economy, by the loss of faith in their empirical culture and, less obviously, by the corrosive effects of feminism, Cecil Rhodes and Sir Alfred Milner formed a Society of the Elect. Conceived as a series of expanding rings of initiates and helpers drawn mostly from fellow Oxonians (graduates of Oxford) they set a three-fold agenda: re-integration of America within an expanded British Empire, an Oceanic Commonwealth of English-speaking peoples; the spread of the British concept of “freedom” throughout the world; and internationalism led by a mostly Anglo-Saxon elite. Social welfare was part of the goal of ‘freedom’ and the primacy of “free markets” was sure to bring multiculturalism and corporate socialism in its wake.

The Milner Group as it came to be called founded The Round Table (much on their minds was the demise of Camelot as described by Tennyson in Idylls of the King (1873). The RT was the name of the group, of its journal (b. 1910), and frequent symposia and conferences it sponsored around the world to spread its agenda via control of the media and prominent role in academia. The RT consulted with the British royal family which early became converts to and supporters of its goals. These were practiced with great success against the Dutch in South Africa from 1895-1902 resulting in creation of the Union of South Africa.

In 1919, at the Versailles Peace Conference, the Round Table created the Royal Institute for International Affairs to enhance its influence, prestige and place in the establishment. Two years later it created the Institute for International Affairs in New York City, but changed the name to the Council on Foreign Relations so the link would be less blatant. Philip Kerr, Lord Lothian, a major player in the RT used the second issue of Foreign Affairs the Council’s journal to decry the dangers and archaism of sovereignty and to promulgate a world government. Richard Nixon, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Mikhail Gorbachev and German President Roman Herzog are among the many who since then have echoed this call. We were told that “it takes a village to raise a child” and given a public school system filled with ignorant nannies to implement this. This terminates the authority of parents and links feminism and internationalism of the Anglo-American and Russian projects for world administration.

This process has been gradual but rocky for society. In 2007, a Federal Court in Oregon ruled that the rights of parents “end at the schoolhouse door.” Wife-initiated divorce, championed in England and then America from the late 19th century arrived wholesale with “no-fault” divorce in 1970. Since post-War American feminists were supported by both the CIA (Gloria Steinem) and the Rockefeller and Carnegie institutes, the take-down of culture has been orchestrated from the highest levels. Why would the Anglo-American player facilitate the Soviet-Russian strategy? And the CIA of the 1950s-60s was filled with former Nazis.

But let us return to geopolitics…

Throughout the 1920s and -30s, British and American finance (J.P. Morgan, Royal Dutch Shell, Ford, GM, General Electric, Standard Oil, ITT) and diplomats (the Dawes plan) financed Hitler and the re-growth of German corporations like the giant petrochemical cartel, IG Farben. As early as December 1920, Ford’s support for the “Bavarian anti-Semitic Chief” [Hitler] was reported by the New York Times as was Hitler’s adulation of Ford’s anti-Semitic writings.

Throughout the 1930s, British diplomats under the direction of Neville Chamberlain worked tirelessly to undermine the French and the Eastern European nations to create a European bloc dominated by Germany. Because the League of Nations did not serve their three main goals, the British repeatedly gutted it, -- for example when the Italians invaded Ethiopia in 1935. The British could have stopped this aggression simply by closing the Suez Canal but preferred that the attack proceed. But the following year they forgot their support for Mussolini when he asked for their help in keeping Hitler out of Austria. They then betrayed the Czechs threatening that if they did not surrender to Hitler they would not guarantee the restoration of the Republic after a war and prevented any offers by Russia to guarantee the sovereignty of eastern European states. The Chamberlain group, which enjoyed majority support in Commons after Munich and even after Germany’s attack on Poland, short-circuited a top-level German plan to assassinate Hitler as soon as he gave the order to invade Czechoslovakia on September 28, 1938.

An interesting detail is that after the German occupation of the Czechs, the British returned $8 million in Czech gold to… Germany; so intense was their commitment to the three bloc world.

The British upper echelons preferred a terrifying German-dominated continent to stave off Russia though Russia and Germany soon made a (short-lived) peace and economic pact. They preferred Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe to destroying Communism in order to weld America firmly into the Oceanic association which, during the 1970s grew through the Trilateral Commission to include Japan. Is this why America allowed German and Japanese factory ships to decimate the abundant fishing grounds off New England and Nova Scotia in the last decades of the 20th century? The ‘bold gambit’ to bring Japan into the Oceanic commonwealth also empowered Germany at America’s expense.

Do these maneuvers help explain the overt and covert transfer to China of missile technology during the Clinton years? Is the ruin of our fishing grounds part of the payback and rationale for importing twenty per cent of America’s fish from China? Since much of this food contains large amounts of illegal contaminants who is the winner in this part of the Bridge game? Is the toxic food acceptable collateral damage for luring China away from Russia and toward Oceania or simply to impoverish, sicken and weaken Americans? How about that Clinton proposal to grant China a port and free trade zone in Southern California? Was that to draw them toward our bloc or to expose it to Communist influence and lowered wage and health standards? The Bush II version of this plan was to turn over inspections at six of America’s ports to a conglomerate based in Dubai and Britain. It sounds like “fanning the flames of pan-Islamic nationalism.”* If our leaders are playing to win, at whose expense is the game?

From 1920-48 the British perverted their League of Nations Mandate to establish a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine (Jordan and Israel), ultimately defining Jewish immigration and settlement, which they were required to facilitate, as illegal while encouraging limitless Arab immigration as well as frequent attacks on the Jews. They also armed and trained the forces of the surrounding Arab states they had created upon dismembering the Ottoman Empire. They maintained a ban on Jewish immigration during the holocaust (the “White Paper” of 1939) and did their utmost, through the “Intergovernmental Committee” to ensure that America would do the same; it did. Since Israel’s counterattack against Egypt in 1956 and its brief occupation of the Sinai Peninsula, American diplomatic, political and military cadres have taken on the British role via the land for peace processes and Road Map. Israeli military victories must be reversed; its abilities even to wage war must be hamstrung. Rather than absorb a strong Israel into NATO the Anglo-Americans preferred the English project of creating “an Arab Federation, its front door on the Mediterranean.”

In recent years this is called the New Middle East. It is an impossible project and while diplomatic and military dominance continues to be American, economic and political control of Israel has been shifting to Europe and thus Germany. As one Israeli puts it, “our corrupt politics are run by European money.” Euro-funded terrorist groups like the ISM (International Solidarity Movement) attack Jewish farms and farmers and EU troops now patrol Israel’s northern borders or, rather, armistice lines.

The Oceanic Commonwealth has been established with American blood and money under British tutelage. But by joining the EU and opening itself to German and Russian policies, regulations and agents, Britain has enmeshed (or ensnared) its people and sovereignty in that of the other two blocs its geopolitical strategists saw as competitors. Tony Blair, a scruffy far left Laborite was made presentable and an ardent proponent of an interventionist NATO and collective security. Does he not, like Joschka Fischer and Bill Clinton sway to a Soviet line even if the stance is not blatant but embedded deeply in his education and notions from the formative years? The rulers of Britain, their banks and media have destroyed their nation with multiculturalism and political correctness, a Leninist method and term; as noted above, the process grows steadily in America. In the home of the global commonwealth scheme of a three-block world, England’s EU representatives are pressured to break England into regions which certainly would be a great leap forward for the German and Soviet blocs. As Stalin said: “first separate [break down], the federate” which facilitates the imposition of collective security from outside with no ability to control at local levels. Balkanization comes to the United Kingdom, a bland form of what NATO did in the Balkans to apparent Soviet dismay. But this Soviet tactic was practiced and praised by G.H.W. Bush and W. Bush. The latter in April 2007 signed with German PM Angela Merkel, a former GDR Communist cadre an ambitious plan to increase American and EU integration of commerce and security. After all, it is all one game as the destruction of Yugoslavia and endless attrition against Israel indicate.

It may be more than an apt irony that all the “confidence-building measures” designed by our diplomats to fuse aspects of the Soviet and Anglo-American systems were referred to, especially by the Soviets as “convergence.” This beguiling term of art re-surfaced as the euphemism for the American-Sharon-Olmert plan to ethnically cleanse the Jews from Judea, Samaria and Gaza and to destroy their communities in favor of jihadist terror. Convergence means defeat of the West, uprooting its taproot, and the triumph of Soviet collectivism.

Milner must be turning in his grave; and Rhodes too. After all, if the British were willing to destroy South Africa and Rhodesia and hand them to Communist racists is their game the rule of “a fraternal association of English-speaking peoples” or controlled social fission and the scrambling of all sovereign coherence? Is their bridge partner Russia? Is that why the American ruling echelon coordinates with the EU-Germany and cedes it a main role in the developing Arab Federation?

The German Core of the European Home

Since the 1860s, Prussia has sought to dominate German speaking lands and all of Europe via the gradualist approach of Economic Union and common markets. They did this in Central Europe by 1870 and had plans to extend it throughout the Continent by 1921, in the aftermath of their military defeat in WW I. This they did in the Rapallo Pact and in secret understandings with Lenin to manufacture armaments in Russia and to build plants for the Soviets in exchange for access to Russia’s vast natural resources. This also was a key component of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact of 1939.

In 1941-2, the Head of the German Central Bank, Walter Funk oversaw production of a detailed document titled Europaische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft (“European Economic Community”); this duly became the Common Market and its subsequent growth. It planned the dominance of Europe by Germany, with French assistance and through this dominance, alliance with Russia and exploitation of its natural resources “against the old rotten entrenched powers of the West.” Drawing on the earlier ideas of General Karl Haushofer, by the 1930s, German and Soviet top Generals agreed that “Germany and the USSR can dictate our terms to the whole world if we stand together.” These views were absorbed by Konrad Adenauer in the 1920s-30s though in the post-War years he was presented by the media as America’s man in an Americanized Germany. The “Madrid Circular” disseminated by Adenauer’s Government in 1952 reiterated Germany’s orientation toward the East, an agenda later masked within the ‘progressive’ doctrine of East-Politics (Ostpolitik) under Willy Brandt so celebrated by Western media. Decades earlier, not only the Vatican “ratlines” but Germany’s Madrid-based network, “the Spider” helped Nazi officials escape to South America and to deposit vast sums of money in Switzerland, Portugal and the Americas. In this effort, reported in the New York Press as early as April 1944, Nazis from Germany, Austria and Croatia had major assistance from the Vatican whose pro-German bias was demonstrated often before and during the second War. Even the Jews of Rome were taken to death literally under the Pope’s windows and with his knowledge. His record showed that he would rather destroy the German Catholic Center Party and elevate Hitler than save a single Jew. Yet he and his successors continue to tutor the world in ethics.

Continuing today it is common for the highest officials of America, like President Bush in early June 2007, to visit Berlin for consultations and then proceed to an audience with the Pope. On this current visit, the Vatican announced in advance that his Holiness would question the President about American policies in Iraq. This is not only to reserve for the Vatican the odor of sanctity regarding international issues but to apply a German boot to the Oceanic chief. But why do Mr. Bush and his pawn, PM Olmert of Israel subject themselves to this itinerary and these interviews? Is it programming, correlation of the minuet, and/or distractions for public consumption? Each has interests and obligations in central Europe antithetical to the wellbeing of their own people.

In January 1963, Germany signed a bilateral treaty with France, the Elysee Treaty committing them to “analogous positions” in economic, political and military policy, especially in international affairs. Germany also signed a series of bilateral agreements with Russia calling for “collective security arrangements” for dispute resolution throughout Europe that includes Russia. The French signed pacts with Russia that committed them to work for collective approaches to European security.

As the contrived “collapse” of the Soviet Union in 1989-90 gave its goal of a borderless world-collective more covert form, Gorbachev and Helmut Kohl, the man made by I.G. Farben agreed on the subsuming of Bohemia and Moravia (henceforth, the Czech Republic) with Slovenia and Croatia within the German, Central European Core. This was part of the Nazi General Plan 1945. This plan also sought “a European Federal Union” via the “economic integration of Europe” and a “commonwealth between Germany, Bohemia and Moravia” (the Czech Republic). Conversely, in retaking East Germany, the Germans also accepted its personnel, all Communists. In this respect, the celebrated glasnost or “opening” to the West was really the popping of a pod filled with toxic seeds. Are the Germans and Russians playing with or against each other? How about America which built its CIA in large part from former German agents? Who sits next to whom in the Bridge Game to a New World Order? In geopolitical musical chairs partners often change places; or perhaps none of them have a fixed place just as there are to be no more sovereign nations, just spheres of interest of militarized bureaucracies.

By 1991 the German navy was patrolling in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Djibouti; in 2006-07 it has a flotilla of ships patrolling offshore of the Lebanon and Israel, regularly threatening IDF planes supervising Israel’s borders. Alois Brunner, a high ranking Nazi in the final solution, for several decades served the Asad regime as an advisor on chemical weapons. Amin al Husseini, captured by Americans in Germany in 1945, was given a safe house in France and then helped to escape to Egypt where he resumed his efforts to secure extermination of the Jews. Meanwhile, Russian military, diplomatic and intelligence support for Iran, Syria and a congeries of jihadist groups has been growing since the late 1950s. In this are they with or against the Oceanic bloc that continues to arm, train and sanitize Arab states and some terrorist groups?

The Russian-Soviet Bloc

At the Second Congress of the Communist International, commonly known, by those reductions of language about which Orwell warned, as the Comintern, the delegates decided that “Federation is a transitional form towards the complete union of all nations.” This approach was vigorously pursued by Lenin, Stalin, and most successfully by Mikhail Gorbachev now ensconced in San Francisco as the head of various UN, environmental and ‘spiritual’ world associations. In 2002 Mr. Gorbachev told EU delegates that they were “a European Soviet.” Boris Yeltsin, celebrated by western media as a free-spirited force for democratization and pluralism was in fact a long-nurtured party apparatchik who yielded to Vladimir Putin of the KGB and GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence).

Reviewing the approach toward perestroika and glasnost, also celebrated in the west, one sees that it was initiated by KGB chief Yuri Andropov and led, through the skillful Gorbachev and superficially clownish Yeltsin to KGB /GRU officer Putin who sends radiation packets to his enemies and arms Iran. Why would the western media and the financiers who own them applaud what a classic Communist deception, an application of the collapse-to-infiltrate model? Perhaps the leaders of Oceania and the German block want to build up Russia and Russian globalist principles in order to speed their own plans for a World Security State as Chamberlain did with Hitler. After all, it was American, English and German bankers and industrialists, even more than Germans like Krupp or Emil Kirdoff who supported the Communists as well as the Nazis. Is it possible that the evil geniuses of Eurasian Hegelian dialectics are dancing happily to a tune adopted by the “fraternal association of English-speaking peoples”? In the musical chairs of Globalism one experiences the shocking last scene of Orwell’s Animal Farm: as the simple animals (tax payers, subjects) stand in the window watching their masters, they are astonished to see it has become impossible to distinguish the pigs from the humans.

It is precisely this interpenetration detailed by the in-depth study Unholy Trinity (Aarons and Loftus, 1998 revised). Despite it focus on the Vatican “ratlines” for Nazis fleeing Europe and their use of Switzerland to launder money the subtext is the degree to which Russian, British, German, and Vatican intelligence services infiltrated each other. The most diligently competent players were American military intelligence though the value of its findings were consistently marred by British or CIA-State Department meddling. Of the lot it is clear that the Russians, first to last, were the most devious and brilliant at feint and deception. In the game of free markets v. continental tariff areas all paths lead to corporate socialism and collective security aimed at reducing citizens to serfs.

Give them credit -- the Russians have not just outfoxed western intelligence but totally infiltrated the West’s cultural institutions through academia and the reflexively “progressive” attitudes of journalists. But the great Western donors to academia and owners of the media have supported and encouraged Marxist-feminist and Darwinist materialist trends. This may be because it serves their agenda of population control and reduction: as Edwin Black wrote, “eugenics,” birth control and selection was the de facto religion of the English, German and American elites during the twentieth century’s formative decades. They have succeeded: birth rates in Europe range from 1.2 to 1.8 per woman: there will be no Europeans left to appreciate the clever and sterile game. So, as the above reference to Animal Farm suggests, the “bridge players” collaborate in a war on the peoples of the world in driving toward a regionalized world system. Health care will be mandatory and unaffordable. More gradually and relentlessly than Pol Pot, the Chinese urbanize their population for urbanites are more readily controlled, starved, made ill… They take our technology and money and give us what ‘we’ want: cheap junk and toxic food. Will not, do not the commissars and Rockefellers shake hands?

Apropos of this end game scenario, in April 2007, Iran was made Vice Chair of the UN’s “Disarmament Commission.” Since David Rockefeller paid for the UN building who gets the most from its anti-western and western-funded fulminations, Western or Soviet builders of the bridge to the world security state? It’s difficult for the field beasts to distinguish between their tax-masters.

What does all this convergence make of Russian, Anglo-American, and German-EU-Vatican jousting in the Middle East? German loans and trade and Russian weapons and diplomatic support, as well as bad faith by American elites have built Iran into the main enemy of America and its Saudi client-partner. All sides, including the Ayatollahs profit by the crisis they have built. What nation or people is most at risk, what is the sacrifice to the community of interests among the three great blocks and their inflammable dummy?

The Dummy is the Wild Card

“Annihilate the infidels [non-Muslims] and polytheists. Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one.” This broadcast on PA TV (7-08-05) came two months after President G.W. Bush praised Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) as “a moderate and a man of courage.” Abbas, one of Yasser Arafat’s original accomplices in creating and running Fatah (b. 1958) which spawned the PLO (1964) rules the editors of PA media.

Why does America heavily arm the PLO, Fatah and all their congeries of interrelated terror groups like Force 17 (“the Presidential Guard”) and Al Aksa Brigades, and train them in hi-tech electronic surveillance and jamming techniques? Why is the “greatest goal of American policy” as Secretary of State and former NSC Director Condi Rice put it “creating a Palestinian [sic] State” in the heartland of Israel such that every person in Israel literally will be under the rifle and rocket fire of terrorists? Is not Israel a de facto client state of the Oceanic Commonwealth, an economic and technological powerhouse and ally, a springboard for American action in the region?

More: since Fatah is an outgrowth of the Arab Higher Council formed by the Nazis to aid their war against Britain and to exterminate the Jews should not the leaders of Oceania strengthen their Israeli asset? Still more so in that Fatah and the PLO from their inception till at least 1982 were part of Soviet intelligence and terror operations directed mainly against Anglo-American influence in the Middle East? As Romanian Security Chief Ion Pacepa wrote, Arafat literally was an agent for Russia, regularly briefed and debriefed by the Ceausescu regime. In the Middle East, Oceania’s surrender of its position to Europe and Russia seem blatant. What are the goals and results of fomenting crisis rather than pursuing victory?

“What makes Allah happy is when kufir [“infidels,” non-Muslims] are killed. A kufir in an Islamic country is like a cow. You take it to market and you sell it. If you cannot sell it, you kill it.” Abu Hamsa al Masri is funded by Russian and German money. Why is he alive with an American army in Mesopotamia, with America satellites above him and carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf? Why especially when the British and Americans want Persian and Azerbaijani oil; the British formed the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, now Getty in 1899 to exploit it. Why the game of words with Iran; why the arming of states that support and generate jihadist terror?

“Iraq” was a Russian client; Anglo-America suckered Saddam into Kuwait, belatedly took him down, in the interval presenting the Oslo Peace Plan and morphing it into the Road Map; now that artificial state, Iraq, chaotic as it may be is in the Oceanic sphere of interest and control. Russia loves disintegration and is delighted to see America bogged down there, attempting to do an impossible job of creating a Federal Republic and comity. The question is, why do the American ruling cadres continue to try? Jihadist documents like “the Management of Savagery” show, as much as the background of Arafat and Abbas that jihadists are permeated with Soviet and German dialectic views on extended war. So too are the policies and pronouncements of our top military and political officials, a long twilight war on terror has displaced the Cold War.

Lebanese refugee Brigitte Gabriel states, “Hamas has the largest infrastructure of any terrorist group in the USA… They are using our own laws and democracy against us.” Immigrant from Syria, secular Muslim Nonie Darwish adds, “To do jihad you have to have an enemy…nothing can be done wrong by Islam. It is always the fault of the West.”

Why then do the Anglo-American elites, their intelligence, academic and media cadres continue to sponsor the myth of Islamic moderation and to arm most Arab nations against Israel? This betrayal does not buy America or Americans any goodwill.

“The number one enemy of Islam is America and not only Israel… America is behind every problem: unemployment, poverty, hunger and failures of marriage” (Iranian TV, 2004, tape on Obsession II: the Media of Terrorism). As Khaled Abu Toameh, notes, “in order to survive, Islamic clerics constantly incite their people against the West.” Two weeks before 9/11, Ikrama Sabri, head of the Islamic Trust that exercises de facto control of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem prayed at a sermon for America to be destroyed, saying in part, “a divine blow soon will be dealt to America.” And perhaps that’s what it was regardless of who the agents of the attack were.

Is he a fortune teller; is he blessed with divine inspiration; or is he a conduit for covert information? Another question: given his clear animus, why do America’s top echelons continue to demand that Israel tolerate his aggressive ranting, refuse to move America’s embassy to Jerusalem as mandated by the Senate (in a 95-4 vote) and even snub Israel’s celebration of the liberation and unification of Jerusalem? After all, during the nineteen years that Britain’s puppet-creation, Jordan ruled part of the city there was wholesale destruction of Jewish holy sites and prevention of Jewish prayer in the Old City.

We thought religious hate crimes were the bete noir of political correctness…

Although by religion jihadists should direct their main energies against the atheist Russians, post-religious Europe or polytheist India they instead concentrate their main energies against America, the last bastion of Western faith and against monotheistic Jews.

Clearly the dummy at the game board has its own agenda, influenced perhaps by the assistance it gets from the German-European and Russian blocks that the English were so eager to create. The Maghreb, northern coastal African states west of Egypt are within the sway of Spain, France and Germany more than of America. Iran, Syria, Lebanon and the terror groups are aligned with the EU and Russians against America and Israel, although America arms some of these same groups and works overtime to do to Israel what the English did to the Czechs: “partition by negotiation” with partition leading to extinction and domination by one of the other blocks. Is the secret of the Oceanic block its love of death? Since the late 19th century, since Wagner, Klimt, Schiele, Tomas Mann and atonal music that seemed to be a German phenomenon: are the English and American ruling classes also bent on death? Our popular culture has been enamored with the beauty of terror for two centuries. As for morbidity, in Russia two of every three pregnancies are aborted and live births per woman are 1.3; there are nearly twice as many deaths annually as births. Feminism, population control and the multi-faceted war on fatherhood and the family certainly have done their work.

From the vantage of amoral power politics one could argue that the Anglo-American bloc has steadily been frustrating Russian and German aims in the Islamic world and making gains against it. Egypt and the PLO were taken away from the Russians as clients although Iran was given away to them with the major assistance of the French who are tied to Russia in manifold bilateral and European pacts. Russia took Iraq from the British but America seems to have taken it back. And if Oceania is dismantling Israel, up to a point, they did the same thing to Rhodesia and South Africa that they acquired with so much grit, expenditure, and, in the case of South Africa, chicanery and aggression. If they could take down eastern Europe in favor of the Germans, why not take down Israel, with all it provides them in favor of the jihadists despite the primary animus of the latter toward America? Why not let the Europeans try to direct the mess?

When the ruling American echelons saved Arafat from Israel in Beirut in 1982 and re-inserted him and the PLO into Israel a decade later for Oslo and the Road Map they certainly knew with whom they were dealing: was this another American-Russian joint project to create conditions for fracturing the world and administering a population reduced in numbers and wealth? Islam has its own agenda but be clear: its arms and money are from the three blocs and on their sufferance. They can be snuffed anytime their utility is less than their value in achieving the world security state.

So the dummy at the table plays his own hand but if he were less intoxicated with visions of genocide and murderer’s Paradise he would see that his game is a hotheaded version of the trio being played by the masters of the bridge to the future, younger in years than he but far older in cynicism, technical expertise and even in deception. But there is one thing they all agree on…

Why Israel and the Jews

The three great blocs and their jihadist utensil all hate the Jews; they all target Israel. The godlessness of the trio and the savagery of the dummy, its grotesque theft and distortion of Judaism gather them all against Jerusalem as if willfully fulfilling the prophecies of Zechariah and Ezekiel. As the paradigm of a sovereign nation that sees the world as foundationally apportioned by the Creator into seventy nations Israel, however tenuously Jewish its establishment is a standing critique to the borderless international agenda of the three blocs. This is why Israel of all states if refused to establish genuine borders. Judaism is based on distinctions and on integrity in every sense. Post-modernism is based on parody, forgetting, pastiche and the collapse of distinctions between genders, nations and cultures.

From its conception of the Eternal One, to the responsibilities of every individual with his family’s inalienable plot of land, to its privileging of the father as educator and authority freedom permeates Judaism which thus stands athwart the global drive toward slavery, the goddess worship, power-lust and materialist determinism of the blocs. So does it too, in its emphasis on the blessing of abundance and children stand against the created impoverishment, population reduction and sterile sex that is the de facto religion of the blocs. Judaism’s orientation around remembrance opposes the endless burial and re-writing of history, the enforced forgetting that is the method of the blocs that seek to impose the nightmare described by Orwell: “the past was erased. The erasure was forgotten. The lie became truth.” And Judaism acknowledges the ultimate sovereignty, grace, and love of the Creator for every human being whom the rulers of the board game hold in contempt, consider as raw material, and whom Islam marks out for conversion or torture and murder. Islam is unlikely ever to outgrow its essential orientation toward thievery, lies and murder, and its pathological envy of Jews no matter how much the latter benefit and conciliate them. Fourteen centuries of history demonstrate this.

So World War III, the last War is the War against the Jews and the Rise of the World Security State. It is a state of intervention, of deceit, of cheapening and waste of life; of desolation and endless fake wars; a state that has no future. The only future is to the people who do not play the game of dominance but who cherish life and look to the King Who desires life. The only people with a future are those who cherish and remember their past, integrating it into a living present: one nation upon the hills in the mountains of Israel. That is why a crazed world wants to erase the settlers whose simple and honorable lives are the last best hope of humankind.

We notice that this section on the target is the fifth to which the previous ‘kingdoms’ lead. It reminds one of the fifth kingdom of the “holy supreme nation” the Ancient of Days arranges for His holy ones, the Children of Israel (Daniel 7:9-27). It’s less strange and far more hopeful than the bridge game of the blocs and their flammable dummy.

* Ze’ev Jabotinsky, The London Times, December 1930

Eugene Narrett, PhD

Send email feedback to Eugene Narrett, PhD