By Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat (Shoebat.com Sunday special, in advanced)
Jesus declared regarding Satan’s kingdom: “if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.” (Mark 3:24). In today’s world, the so-called ‘conservative’ choose to pledge allegiance to anyone who is anti-Islam, regardless if they be atheist, eugenist etc … but Jesus warned, that the kingdom of Satan (while they divide on many points) will ultimately unite. In other words, you can have all of the “secularist” activists ‘fighting the jihad’ that you want, but as long as they are godless, they will war against God and His people.
And this is exactly the case we will prove here.
Many of the so-called conservatives get excited when they read about how seven hundred people, led by Geert Wilders (conservative), gathered together for a street protest in favor of Dutch nationalism, as we read in one report from the Daily Sabah.
This is the same Wilders who supports “gay rights, the legality of euthanasia, embryo selection and abortion,” which he believes are values that “under siege throughout Europe” by non-other than Islam. This is also the same Geert Wilders who helped bring into the higher echelons of Dutch politics, Edith Schippers, who once said: “If freedom of choice results in a situation that nearly no children with Down syndrome are being born, society should accept that.”
Wilders, and others like him, are simply using Islam to advance anti-human and eugenist ideas, all under the pretext that ‘these values are being attacked by Islam.’
But who is helping the rise of nationalism and identitarianism in Europe? Here at Shoebat.com we have been at the forefront of trying to shed light on who is backing this sudden surge of political radicalism in Europe. We have been trying to find out how deep this rabbit hole really goes.
Nationalist fervor continues to rise in Europe. In the Netherlands Geert Wilders’ party is now the second largest party in the Dutch parliament. We remember how years and years ago, Wilders did not have a single seat in the parliament, and was starting out speaking in very small counterjihad events, like speaking in some apartment. Geert Wilders got more famous in America, before he took a significant amount of seats in the Netherlands.
In the beginning of Wilders’ political career, he was deep within the speaking circles of the counterjihad, the movement that was officialized in the European parliament in the 2007 Counterjihad Summit in Brussels, organized by the neo-Nazi Filip DeWinter, and financed by the CIA backed think-thank, Center for Security Policy, which was financially established by Richard Mellon-Schaife, an American eugenist who gave millions to Planned Parenthood and, with his money, commenced the enterprise of the right-wing think tank.
Wilders started out as not a very big name in the political sphere of the Netherlands, making himself a name within right-wing counterjihad circles in the United states, and being a heir to the Dutch right-wing sodomite, Pim Fortuyn. We remember the days when he was just a talker for counterjihad fans in the US, without a seat in the Dutch parliament, using the threat of Islam to pump himself up and advance his ultra-nationalist agenda. Wilders’ fake bleach blond hair is all a way to cover up his Indonesian features and to make himself appear more European, in a marketing gimmick that appeals to the masses.
From being a speaker for the Euro-obsessed counterjihad movement, giving talks in obscure speaking engagements, he is now the leader of the second largest party in the Netherlands.
How did this happen?
For one, Wilders would have never gained the seats he did without the migration crises in Europe in 2015. This event really boosted his image as a savior of Europe, as it did for other parties, such as the neo-pagan Golden Dawn in Greece, the neo-Nazi Freedom Party in Austria, and the Alternative for Deutschland Party in Germany.
But one cannot observe this nexus without adding into it the American factor. For one, what acted as a catalyst to this migration crises? The Iraq War, which was justified under the emotions caused by the 9/11 attacks. The September 11th attacks acted as the perfect pretext to invade Iraq, which is what the US wanted to do anyway, regardless of the 9/11 massacre. Going all the way back to the 1990s, the United States wanted to not just invade Iraq, but to also remove any Soviet favored leaders, such as Assad and Gaddafi.
According to US Army General Wesley Clark, in 1991, Paul Wolfowitz told him that the US has 5-10 years to “clean up those old Soviet client regimes, Syria, Iran, Iraq, before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.”
In 2002, John Bolton referred to Syria and Libya as being a part of an “axis of evil,” that needed to be stopped by the US. Bolton pointed to Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal as the reason for a possible intervention:
The United States also knows that Syria has long had a chemical warfare program. It has a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin and is engaged in research and development of the more toxic and persistent nerve agent VX. …America is determined to prevent the next wave of terror. States that sponsor terror and pursue WMD must stop. States that renounce terror and abandon WMD can become part of our effort. But those that do not can expect to become our targets. …America is leading in the fight to root out and destroy terror. …We call on Libya, Cuba, and Syria to live up to the agreements they have signed. We will watch closely their actions, not simply listen to their words. Working with our allies, we will expose those countries that do not live up to their commitments.
Richard Perle, who was Chairman of the Board in 2001 under the Bush Administration, was calling for US involvement in Syria and Libya back in 2003, saying:
So the message to Syria, to Iran, to North Korea, to Libya should be clear. if we have no alternative, we are prepared to do what is necessary to defend Americans and others.
What this shows is that the Cold War never ended. While the US is still stuck in this Cold War mentality, what it is failing to do, or what it intends not to do, is to shed light on the rise of eugenist movements in the West. By destroying the pan-Arab governments in the Middle East, it caused a refugee crises that has only made eugenics more fashionable, and has made famous nationalists like Wilders.
How did this come about?
It all appears to be a scheme that has been being organized for numerous years.
In fact, the plan to destabilize Syria was planned out decades ago. In 1986, the US government produced a plan entitled Syria: Scenarios of Dramatic Political Change (you can read our report on this by clicking here). You can review the snapshots from the CIA document itself.
According to the document itself, it says that the plan was “prepared by ______ Foreign Subversion and Instability Center, Office of Global Issues.”
Look at the title: “Foreign Subversion and Instability Center,” the name itself is self-explanatory.
The US government was planning for several scenarios, but more specifically it was in favor for mass violence in Syria caused by conflict between the Sunni majority of Syria and the dominating Alawite minority, that would lead to a devastating civil war. The US government believed that “excessive government reaction” to Sunni revolts would lead to this violence and eventual civil war. It reads:
“Tensions between Alawis [Shiites] and Sunnis have been muted in recent years, but the potential for serious communal violence remains. A Sunni rebellion in the late 1970s and early 1980s ended when Assad crushed the Muslim Brotherhood that spearheaded it. Although we judge that fear of reprisals and organizational problems make a second Sunni challenge unlikely, an excessive government reaction to minor outbreaks of Sunni dissidence might trigger large-scale unrest. In most instances the regime would have the resources to crush a Sunni opposition movement, but we believe widespread violence among the populace could stimulate large numbers of Sunni officers and conscripts to desert or mutiny, setting the stage for civil war.”
What a grand plan.
Notice that it specifies “excessive government reaction” to Sunni outbreaks; because this is exactly what the US government focused on at the beginning of the revolution in 2011. Watch the 2011 interview between Assad and Barbara Walters, and you will see how the old Jezebel was fixated on how the Syrian government was punishing “dissidents” such as singers and protesters. It was all part of a plan devised by the US government and other powers. Also, “widespread violence amongst the populace” is exactly what took place from the beginning years to now in the Syrian revolution.
In the same plan written by the US government, it proposes for the West to supply weapons to rebels against the Syrian regime, saying:
“A shift to a Western arms supplier also could prompt parallel efforts to seek Western financial advice and support.”
It also pushes for a plan that would replace Alawite power with Sunni power, because this shift would weaken Russia’s influence in the region:
“The continuation of Alawi dominance would be most beneficial to Soviet interests. The value of an Alawi regime to Moscow would diminish, however, if the new government fell victim to political infighting, forcing the Soviets to choose sides in a series of power struggles. If the Sunnis gained power, Moscow’s position would be weaker because of Sunni resentment of Soviet support for Alawis.”
And this is exactly what the US is doing: it is working to enable Sunni Turkey to expand into Alawite dominated Syria. This would help Turkish imperialism, and thus, would lead to the revival of the Ottoman Empire. The nazis of today, who lie in the upper echelons of governments, are advancing the cause of Antichrist, and as it always is, the Crescent finds an alliance with the haters of humanity. Go to history and you will see this reality. The Ottomans allied with the Protestants of Germany, the Netherlands, France and Great Britain, against Catholic Christendom. In the First World War, the Germans and the Ottomans were allies; in the Second World War, the Muslims joined the ranks of the Nazis. History is but a mirror looking at the face of the future. As it was in the past, it will reoccur in due time.
The US government plan has a section entitled “Indicators of the developing Scenario” in which it lists the situations that would lead to a full-scale revolution:
In the example above, isn’t this exactly what we have been witnessing since 2011? The plan went accordingly, like clockwork. It only shows that the Middle East, like much of the world. is just a giant laboratory for US schemes.
Protests and government arrests of dissidents is exactly the types of situations that the West used to make propaganda in the early stages of the revolution in 2011. We remember how in those days, how most of the media was in support for the revolution against Assad. We at shoebat.com were amongst the few exposing the reality of how evil the revolution is, while most were buying into the propaganda that the West wanted the masses to believe in order to gain support for US policy in Syria.
The document further says that it doesn’t matter who replaces Assad, the US’ policy towards Syria will not change as long as the ruler is of the pro-Russian Alawite faction: “US standing with Syria probably would remain essentially unchanged with the emergence of a new Alawi military regime resolved to maintain the course set by Assad.” Hence why the current administration perpetuates the same stance as the prior ones. In America, parties change, foreign policy does not.
The document emphatically affirms: “We believe Moscow’s interests would be seriously jeopardized if Sunnis came to power through a civil war.” This is exactly what the US is now maintaining in Syria, with the American government supporting Sunni rebels and Kurdish nationalists against the Assad regime, for the purpose of ruining Russia’s leverage in the Middle East.
What is interesting is the connection between the American policy on Syria, and the migration crises currently happening in Europe. With the devastating policies of the United States conducted in Iraq, Syria and Libya, Muslim migrants have been coming into Europe, on account of a deal done by Turkey and Germany. The absorbing of the migrants has been dramatically changing the political climate of Europe, with Britain severing itself from the EU, eugenist politicians like Geert Wilders and Mark Rutte dominating the Dutch parliament, and the Nazi sympathizing Swedish Democrats taking a substantial number of seats in the Swedish parliament.
Fascism is becoming fashionable, and its all thanks to the migration crises, which was caused by American policy in the Middle East, and facilitated by Turkey and Germany, the nations of Ottomanism and Nazism. What I am trying to say is that the nazis in suits who planned out the shift of power in the Middle East, from pan-Arabism to Islamism and Ottomanism, also understood that such plans would naturally lead to political favor towards fascism in Europe. In other words, as Western governments helped pave the path to an Arab Spring, they are also working towards a Europe spring.
The destabilization that the war in Iraq, and the US’ involvement in Syria and Libya, led to a migration crises, which ended up becoming fuel for for the populists, nationalists and identitarians, the likes of which are seen in the ranks and associates of Wilders.
What is very interesting is how Wilders still stays close with the counterjihad movement that he started with, even after winning such a substantial amount of seats in the last election in the Netherlands. Not too long after Geert Wilders won second place in the Dutch elections in 2017, he spoke for the American Freedom Alliance, sharing a platform with David Horowitz of the Horowitz Freedom Center.
This is not insignificant, given that the Horowitz Freedom Center donated €108,244 to Wilders’ campaign — the largest single contribution that it has ever received — and it was given in the year 2015, the same year that the migrant crises in Europe began, the very crises that people like Wilders needed to bolster themselves up. I must stress that the biggest donor to Geert Wilders was not Dutch, but an American counterjihadist, and the fact that the counterjihad movement began in 2007 in the EU parliament and was financed by Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, a major think tank for the counterjihad, and that it was organized by a Flemish neo-Nazi, Filip DeWinter, who is still a comrade of Wilders, all illuminates how deep this rabbit hole goes.
The Horowitz Freedom Center is also funded by the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which is merely a continuation of the funding that the eugenist Richard Mellon Scaife was doing to finance these types of think tanks and groups. Richard Mellon Scaife, while giving millions to Planned Parenthood, and pushing conservatives to support Planned Parenthood, financially founded the CIA connected Center for Security Policy founded by Frank Gaffney and Roger Robinson, a CIA acolyte who pushes for American support of Japanese militarism. Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy financially backed the 2007 Counterjihad Summit in the EU parliament building, the very event that officialized the counterjihad as an international movement which would be used to jumpstart nationalist groups in Europe.
Also not too long after the Dutch elections, Wilders spoke for the Horowitz Freedom Center in honor of Bob Shillman, a major American industrialist who funds movements like the David Horowitz Freedom Center, the Rebel Media, and Brigitte Gabriel’s ACT for America.
Shillman also backs the EDL founder, Tommy Robinson who, since August of 2017, has had the title of “Shillman fellow.” What is interesting is that this is the very Tommy Robinson who conspired, alongside anti-Catholic lesbian counterjihad activist Anne Marie Waters, and Swedish millionaire Alan Ayling, to use a “Muhammad Cartoon competition” to provoke Muslims and cause a ripple effect towards an outright civil war in the UK. Jim Dawson, who was present in the meeting, made an account of this which you can read here.
Another “Shillman fellow” is Bruce Thornton, a writer for FrontPage Magazine who supports the nationalist and identitarian upsurge in Europe. In November of 2016, Thornton wrote an article for the Hoover Institute, stating:
“The current resurgence of populist nationalism in the United States and Europe reflects the pushback against these long-held dogmas of transnationalism, and resistance to the denigration of national identities.”
Bruce Thornton, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, wrote an article published on FrontPage Magazine in defense of the English Eugenist, John Derbyshire, after National Review fired him for saying:
“Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise.”
Now, instead of explicitly condemning this evil, Thornton complains about National Review firing Derbyshire, writing:
“Wittgenstein once wrote, ‘What we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.’ Ex-National Review writer John Derbyshire has just learned the modern American version of this truth. What we Americans cannot talk about is race (except, of course, in the anodyne terms established by political correctness), and woe betide anyone who refuses to pass over this topic in silence.
Shillman is a part of the think-tank apparatus working in conjunction with the government to destabilize the Middle East. While Shillman and his ilk will support the ‘fight the jihad’ crowd, they are supporting the very policies that create the conditions in which ‘the jihad’ thrives, thus creating a dialectic in which you have the atmosphere for Islamism to resurge, and the movements that use Islamism as a means to justify an acceleration of militarism.
Shillman is on the honorary committee of the Washington Forum which is under the FDD, or the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. In 2011, for the conference of that year, the Washington Forum released a document, entitled Ideology, Power, and Alliances in a Changing Middle East, in which Shillman is mentioned as a member of its honorary committee. The meeting was all in support for military intervention and regime change in Syria. Basically, the continuation of the very CIA policy of destabilization in the Middle East. This conference took place in 2011, the year that the Syrian revolution began. So its very interesting to read about this conference in context of the greater agenda to commence chaos in the Middle East.
While people always and ceaselessly accuse us of being traitors for exposing the counterjihad, claiming we are ‘secret Muslims,’ the very people who are funding the counterjihad, like Bob Shillman, are themselves collaborating with pro-jihadists. Present in the conference was Syrian opposition leader Ammar Abdulhamid who, according to the document, is a “Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a member of FDD’s Syria Working Group” and “the Founder and Director of the Tharwa Foundation, a grassroots organization that works to break the Assad government’s information blockade”.
The document goes on to recount the talk that Ammar gave, describing how he called for regime change and for the United States to support the Free Syrian Army (the FSA), a CIA backed Islamist terror group that was involved in anti-Christian persecution and other acts of violence:
For weeks, Syrian protesters had been demanding foreign intervention, a nofly zone and safe havens, said Ammar Abdulhamid, an FDD fellow and Syrian-born activist. The protesters “want a more proactive international role,” he said, noting that the international response has been completely inadequate. The Western decision not to put a military option on the table assures President Bashar Assad “that he can continue doing whatever he wants.” Abdulhamid argued that the United States should intervene in Syria to prevent a civil war, and suggested that Washington send a special envoy to work with Assad’s opposition. He said the Free Syrian Army—composed of defectors from the regular army, who face the death penalty if they are caught—is emerging as the strongest opposition force. If the FSA “is not supported and encouraged to put all the [opposition] groups under its wings, it could be a dangerous situation,” he said, as smaller groups may become radicalized if left to themselves.
If you want to have influence with the FSA, Abdulhamid continued, “You have to become the institute that is influencing them and giving them advice.”
Ammar, while he presents himself has being for democracy, is merely just another cog in the wheel of the interventionist military industry. Here is a video of him from 2012 calling for US regime change policy in Syria:
Now fast forward from 2012 to a 2015 video in which Ammar is very proud that Assad is longer really in power over Syria, and that the revolution has “succeeded” (regardless of the morbid reality that Syria has been utterly reduced to (in his own words) “a failed state”):
Ammar is a very interesting character. While he is in this prestigious think-tank that touts itself as a defender of democracy, he himself is a supporter of the very policy — Western intervention — that served for the destabilization and destruction of the Middle East. Ammar claims not to be a Muslim, writing once regarding his study on the conflict between Shia and Sunni: “both sides suck and that I had better things to do with my life than spreading hate and cater to mindless prejudice.” He also wrote: “By the time I graduated college, I had become an atheist.”
In 2012, the year after the beginning of the Syrian revolution (2011), Ammar and two other Syrian opposition leaders, took a trip to Kosovo to learn from leaders of the Albanian Islamist and nationalist terrorist group, the Kosovo Liberation Army (the KLA) to learn how to successfully carry out a revolution. Ammar told the Associated Press in an interview: “We come here to learn. Kosovo has walked this path and has an experience that would be very useful for us … In particular, we’d like to know how scattered armed groups were finally organized into KLA.”
Serbian political analyst Srdja Trifcovich said that the meeting was done “under the auspices of the United States,” which means that it was part of a US government plan.
Trifcovich also made another astute observation: the fact that Ammar went to the Islamist KLA for advice, shows the violent and nefarious objectives of the revolution:
“I understand that Ammar Abdulhamid, one of the Syrian opposition leaders who came to Pristina and actually spoke to an AP reporter, said “We are here to learn.” Now this should be a huge wake-up call for those Syrians who are not supportive of the opposition, especially the minorities: the Alawites, the Christians – either Orthodox or Greek Catholic – the Shiites, the Kurds. The moderate Sunni Muslims should remember that if the Syrian rebels learn from the KLA, that means there will be a bloodbath after the fall of Assad and there will be no room for anyone but the majority group which subscribes to its extremist credo, whether it is that of greater Albania in Kosovo or the Muslim Brotherhood offshoot in Syria.”
This is very interesting, because it sheds more light on the connections between America’s role in the destruction of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, and the US’ role in the destabilization of the Middle East, specifically in Iraq, Syria and Libya. General Wesley Clark, who led the bombing of Kosovo in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, was told by Paul Wolfowitz in 1991 that the US has 5-10 years to “clean up those old Soviet client regimes, Syria, Iran, Iraq, before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.” So right in the time when the CIA was facilitating the fragmentation of Yugoslavia, the CIA was already planning on destabilizing the Middle East. It is not a coincidence that in the year after the Syrian revolution, a leader of the Syrian opposition, Ammar Abdulhamid — who is part of a major government think tank — went to Kosovo to learn from KLA fighters to learn what do in Syria what they had already done, with US backing, in the Balkans.
It is not surprising at all that this think tank, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, that Ammar is a part of, has on its Board of Advisors Richard Perle, who back in 2003 was calling for regime change in Syria and Libya.
Also in this panel discussion was Andrew Tabler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who said that the United States should use Turkey to create a “safe haven” for rebels fighting to overthrow Assad:
“Tabler added that Turkey or the Arab League might create a buffer zone inside Syria, along the Turkish frontier, to give Syrian dissidents a safe haven.”
Also present in the conference was Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA agent, and Soner Cagaptay, a Turkish-American think tank analyst of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s Turkish research program. In their talk both of these men expressed their full support for the United States to back Turkey as the top nation of the Muslim world:
“Turkey plays an increasingly important role in the new Middle East, said Soner Cagaptay, who directs The Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s Turkish research program.
“The view from Ankara is that Turkey is the region’s leader.” “Turkey’s role in the Arab Spring can be boiled down to Turkey’s role in Syria,” Cagaptay said, noting that Syria—unlike the other Arab Spring countries of Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya—shares a border with Turkey, bears an Ottoman imprint, and has economic, social, and historical connections to Turkey. As the first country in the region—outside of the Gulf States—to have a successful, middleclass Muslim society, Turkey can serve as an economic model for the Mideast. Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at FDD and former CIA Iran operative, agreed. Turkey represents the “possibility you can be devoutly faithful and you can be rich,” said Gerecht. “The best thing for Turkey is to have it become a democratic inspiration and to actually trumpet its own economic success.”
This same Cagaptay is a lobbyist for Turkey’s nationalist desire to make sure that the United States does not label the Armenian Genocide as a genocide. In January of 2017, Cagaptay, and former U.S. ambassador to Ankara James F. Jeffrey, exhorted Trump never to pass an Armenian Genocide resolution. In their own words:
“[T]he United States can quietly guarantee Turkey that the Armenian Genocide resolution in Congress will not pass. This has always been critical in the relationship, and most Turks care deeply about the issue”
Cagaptay describes the Armenian Genocide as simply the “deportation” of Armenians, which is interesting given that the idea of deportation is becoming more and more popular in the United States, Europe and Israel. In 2007 Cagaptay wrote that a resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide should not happen because it would ruin American-Turkish relations:
“Exacerbating these developments is the October 10 House Foreign Affairs Committee vote in favor of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (AGR), which recognizes the deportation of Ottoman Armenians during World War I as genocide. Regardless of its intent, the AGR could hold a number of negative consequences for U.S.-Turkish relations.”
Just by looking at all of this information, what we can conclude is that one of the biggest financial backers of the Counterjihad — Bob Shillman — is a member of the honorary committee for a major think tank — Foundation for Defense of Democracies — that supports Turkey, the most powerful of the Muslim countries, and the very Islamist uprisings in the Middle East that helped to cause the migrant crises in Europe which has served as the strongest fuel for the nationalist and identitarian surge. This very think-tank — the Foundation for Defense of Democracies — also supports Turkey being the superior role model in the Muslim world, and the defender of the Islamic revolutions in the Middle East. Why would one of the biggest donors for the Counterjihad, support a think-tank that supports ‘the jihad’?
We cannot really make an emphatic answer, since information is limited. But it would not be surprising that these industrialist donors are playing both sides: supporting the conditions in which Islamic violence would thrive, and then supporting the nationalist reaction, thereby facilitating the two entities that would bring the world further into war.
According to the American Freedom Law Center, “Dr. Robert J. Shillman is the Founder, Chairman and Chief Culture Officer of Cognex Corporation (www.cognex.com), the world’s leading supplier of machine vision systems (computers that can “see”), in other words, artificial intelligence (AI), the type of artificial intelligence that would be used in a war by the most technologically advanced nations.
Shillman’s corporation, Cognex, is in deep with the international military industrial complex. On August 12th of 2005, Cognex, as we learn from one aerospace publication, announced that it had entered into an agreement with Lockheed Martin to “jointly promote products to help Department of Defense contractors meet new government requirements for unique identification of parts.”
This information cannot really be used against Shillman, since it just shows that he is a successful businessman. But what it does show is a link between the military industrial complex, and the various nationalist movements and figures that have recently surged in popularity. And even when nationalists like Wilders gain prominence, these shills must pay respect to Shillman, they must pay their respects to the industrialists who made them.
Jesus said, “if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.” (Mark 3:24) You can have all of the “secularist” activists ‘fighting the jihad’ that you want. As long as they are godless, they will war against God and His people. “All they that hate me love death.” (Proverbs 8:36)