By Theodore Shoebat
In yet another piece of evidence that when it comes to foreign police the president is controlled by the militarist lobby, Trump just recently warned Assad not to attack the last Muslim rebel stronghold in Syria. As we read in one report from RT:
US President Donald Trump has warned Syrian leader Bashar Assad not to attack Idlib province, one of the last terrorist hideouts in the country, also advising Iran and Russia against taking part in the “potential human tragedy.”
Expressing concern that hundreds of thousands of lives might be at risk in the Syrian Army’s looming operations to clear the Idlib province of militants, Trump cautioned Damascus, as well as Moscow and Iran, against “making a grave humanitarian mistake.”
“President Bashar al-Assad of Syria must not recklessly attack Idlib Province,” Trump tweeted on Monday afternoon. “The Russians and Iranians would be making a grave humanitarian mistake to take part in this potential human tragedy.”
Russia, which has yet to comment on the latest statement from the US leader, has been working for weeks to establish humanitarian corridors in Idlib province. Shortly before Trump’s tweet, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that Russia, Turkey, and Iran are working to separate armed opposition and terrorists in the area so that any potential military operation spares civilian lives. At the same time, Lavrov stressed that terrorists in Syria are still being supplied with weapons and munitions.
The Syrian representative to the UN, Bashar al Jafaari, announced before the UN Security Council that rebels are preparing to launch a chemical weapons attack in the Idlib province so that it can be used as a pretext for another US strike on Syria. As we read in one report from SANA:
“Syria’s Permanent Representative to the UN Dr. Bashar al-Jaafari stressed that terrorist organizations are preparing for the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Idleb to accuse the Syrian Arab Army and to justify any aggression that might be launched by the governments of the states which back these terrorist organizations.
In a speech delivered during a session of the Security Council on the situation in Syria, al-Jaafari said “I put in your hands documented information on the preparations taken by Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist organization and the affiliated groups to use the chemical weapons against civilians in Idleb province to accuse the Syrian Arab Army and to justify any aggression that might be launched on Syria.”
He clarified that eight canisters of chlorine had been transported to Halouz village in Idleb paving the way for the scenario of the drama on the new chemical attack which represented by using poisonous chemical weapons against civilians by terrorists of the Turkistan Islamic Party and Jabhat al-Nusra, and accusing the Syrian government in order to launch an aggression on it.”
Russian intelligence has also affirmed that jihadists are working on another chemical weapons attack and that they are being backed by a major defense corporation called Olive Group, or as one report states: “a group of jihadists, trained in the handling of chemical weapons by the British private military contractor Olive Group, has already arrived in Jisr al-Shughur.”
Olive Group is a part of a major security corporation called Constellis, which has a lot of heads of financial institutions and security operators, like Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr., a big veteran of the Center Intelligence Agency who serves in the international Advisory Board for Constellis. Another member of Constellis’ International Advisory Board is Zalmay Khalilzad, a former US ambassador to Afghanistan under the Bush administration.
Khalilzad’s mentor and close political associate was Zbigniew Brzezinski, a major advisor for the Carter administration and one of the architects of Operation Cyclone, the CIA project to arm and back the Afghan mujahideen. Here is where we reach the link between Constellis and measures being done by powerful governments for the advancement of jihadism, with a more elusive agenda of sparking nationalism. Even if the Russian and Syrian intelligence is not true or just propaganda, we should at least peer briefly at some connections of Olive group and Constellis and see to what rabbit holes they lead, to have a better understanding of the layers of conspiracy that one can find, as opposed to just following the mob and holding politicians out to be heroes.
Just as Gladio was a project by the CIA and Western European intelligence services to spark European nationalism against the Soviets, so the US — with think-tank schemers like Brzezinski — Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Great Britain, wanted to spark anti-Soviet movements within the Soviet Union itself in order to destabilize it. As Brzezinski himself said: “as early as 1978, President Carter approved proposals prepared by my staff to undertake, for example, a comprehensive, covert action program designed to help non-Russian nations in the Soviet Union pursue more actively their desire for independence — a program in effect to destabilize the Soviet Union.”
Brzezinski led “Team B” which was created to bypass the CIA when it believed that anti-Soviet intelligence was inflated. Team B was created under the Ford administration and approved by the then director of the CIA, George HW Bush. Team B consisted of think-tank agents who were outside of the CIA’s sphere, and would be used to push for anti-Soviet policy when the people in the CIA did not support it. Team B’s creation was partially due to a 1974 publication by Albert Wohlstetter, an American Jew who stated that the CIA was not paying the needed attention on the Soviet Union. As the LA Times reports:
“Ever since 1974, when Albert Wohlstetter, a professor at the University of Chicago, accused the Department of Defense of systematically underestimating Soviet missile deployments, conservative critics of detente had been conducting a concerted attack on the single most important government document upon which U.S. national security policy (as well as the defense budget) was based: the CIA’s annual National Intelligence Estimate assessment of the Soviet threat.
The notion was that outside “experts” should be given access to all the highly classified data used by the intelligence community in making its annual assessment of the Soviet threat; maybe they could come up with other (more pessimistic) projections. To differentiate these outsiders from the regular intelligence analysts who were preparing the yearly assessments, the non-government group became known as ‘Team B.’”
In other words, officials in the CIA believed that the Soviet threat was not as big as some were trying to make it, and so the advocates for anti-Soviet policies needed to create a cabal of thinkers who would push for measures that would destabilize the Soviet Union. Team B was chaired by Richard Pipes, the father of known ‘counter-jihadist’, Daniel Pipes. Its no wonder that Daniel Pipes backed the arming of the Afghan Mujahideen, stating, “I think it was the right thing to do … If anything, the radical Islamists were seen as more vehemently anti-Soviet.” (See Dreyfuss, Devil’s Game, p. 288)
It is not shocking to find out that for years Daniel Pipes has been a lobbyist for the Iranian Mujahideen, or the People’s Mujahideen of Iran (Mujahadeen-e Khalq or MEK). Pipes, back in February of 2012, wrote an article lobbying for the US to remove the categorization “terrorist” from the Iranian Mujahideen:
“Remove the unwarranted terrorist tag from the MeK, as the European Union has already done. Government and private sources alike reveal no evidence that the MeK engages in terrorist activities or has the capability and intent to do so.”
Richard Pipes’ strategy was to use Central Asian Muslims against the Soviet Union and even lobbied for the creation of an Islamic Central Asian Turkic state, writing in his 1955 piece, Muslims of the Soviet Union: Trends and Prospects:
“The entire area of Central Asia, including Chinese Turkestan with which Russian Central Asia has always been closely connected, may well trend to move with time in the direction of independent statehood. It is not inconceivable that this vast territory may some day be encompassed in a new Turkic, Muslim state oriented toward the Middle East.” (Ibid, p. 255)
Richard Pipes wanted to fragment Russia by having Muslims in Russia create their own autonomous Muslim states. For example, in 2004 Richard Pipes wrote an article entitled, Give The Chechens A Land Of Their Own, in which he lobbied for the creation of a Muslim Chechen state. In the article he stated that:
“Unfortunately, Russia’s leaders, and to some extent the populace, are loath to grant them independence – in part because of a patrimonial mentality that inhibits them from surrendering any territory that was ever part of the Russian homeland, and in part because they fear that granting the Chechens sovereignty would lead to a greater unraveling of their federation.”
Brzezinski, like Pipes, also backed Chechen separatism, and even supported the Chechen jihad against Russia. This is evinced by the fact that he chaired the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, the most prestigious American organization that backed Chechen separatism.
In 1999, Brzezinski wrote an article entitled, Why the West Should Care About Chechnya, in which he praises “the thousands of Chechen fighters squeezed by Russian pressure into compressed urban ruins.” From August 16 to August 18, 2002, the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya held a meeting between Muslim Chechen separatist leaders where, in the words of Arthur Lepic, “participants concluded that Chechnya should no longer be a part of Russia, that a real autonomy was necessary and the time to negotiate with Maskhadov had arrived.” With Brzezinski on the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya was Frank Gaffney, the founder of the CIA front group, the Center for Security Policy, and one of the architects of the Counterjihad movement. Gaffney, in 1994, wrote an article pushing for American support for the Chechen separatists, affirming that the US needs to “be making it clear that Russia’s failure to act in a manner consistent with democratic practices and Western norms in dealing with the Chechen independence movement will inevitably have adverse consequences for U.S. and allied assistance to Moscow and for efforts to integrate Russia into the West.”
What is fascinating is the fact that a lobbyist like Frank Gaffney was supporting the Jihad against Russia only to, years later, help establish the “Counter-jihad” or anti-Islamic movement that became so prevalent in both the US and Western Europe. Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy’s Senior Vice President, Christine Brim, was the spokesperson for another shell group, the Center for Vigilant Freedom, which financed the 2007 Counterjihad Summit in Brussels, an event that would solidify the Counterjihad as an international movement.
While Gaffney’s movement financed the event, the 2007 Brussels Summit was organized by a Flemish Nazi named Filip DeWinter, who has called for the creation of a “White Europe” and who collaborated with another Nazi, Bert Eriksson. The co-founder for Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, Roger W. Robinson, Jr, worked closely with the former head of the CIA, William Casey, one of the contrivers behind the arming of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. Casey, as we shall see, was all in favor for the intensification of Islamization in Afghanistan and Central Asia as a weapon against the Russians. The roots of the ‘Counter-jihad movement’ are acolytes of Jihad and advocates for Islamization, but they do not have turbans, trimmed mustaches, beards and long white garbs, but suites, Western cunningness, sophistry, diplomacy and smiles. We talk about Iran being ‘the biggest backer of terrorism in the world,’ but the reality is that America itself as been a major center for the advancement of Islamization.
While these lobbyists will today yammer on and on about the ‘threat of Islamization in America,’ or ‘sharia law in America,’ these very deceivers have cunningly pushed for Islamization and nationalism. Brzezinski was facilitating not only Islamization, but nationalist determinism as well. Hence he said of Chechen independence in a speech in 2000: “The issue is whether or not a region can develop on the basis of its own diversity – on the basis of its own identity.” The foundation of the American lobby for war is, at its core, full of nationalist egoism. Brzezinski was a very close collaborator with American nationalist Samuel Huntington, and it was this very Huntington who would later advocate for eugenists like Edward Ross and Lothrop Stoddard. Huntington, in writing for Anglo-Saxon American identitarianism, wrote: “Immigration restrictions were furthered by the ideology of ‘Anglo-Saxonism’ articulated by writers and social scientists as Edward Ross, Madison Grant, Josiah Strong, and Lothrop Stoddard.” All of the names mentioned here are those of eugenists who upheld the superiority of the Northern European race. Stoddard, for example, said: “The cardinal point in our immigration policy should, therefore, be to allow no further diminution of the North European element in America’s racial make-up.”
Huntington, in 1993, called for the US “to exploit differences and conflicts among Confucian and Islamic states”, which is exactly what the US has been doing in the Middle East, with the removal of Saddam to back the Shiites, with the backing of the People’s Mujahideen of Iran to overthrow the current Shiite Iranian regime, with the arming of the Sunni rebels to revolt against the Shiite government of Syria. The US has been following the desires of a eugenist, and this is what is so telling when it comes to the soul of the think-tank lobbyists: there is an underlying desire for nationalist power, eugenics and Social-Darwinsim. In October of 2015, Frank Gaffney interviewed eugenist Jared Taylor, and praised him:
“Jared Taylor joins us, I believe, for the first time. I’m very pleased to have him with us. He is the editor of a very wonderful online publication, American Renaissance.”
This is the same Jared Taylor who advocates for “embryo selection,” which is the process of “selecting” one embryo (based on its genetic makeup) over numerous others, and destroying the rest. Jared Taylor advocates for this process in his belief that it would produce a superior race, saying:
“I believe that an enlightened European people will begin to think in terms of improving itself genetically. I think there are positive eugenic steps that could be taken, embryo selection is one”
After the media began to expose the interview, Gaffney said that he did not know that Taylor is a racist. Yet, its impossible that Gaffney did not know this. For one, a quick and brief search for Jared Taylor and his organization, Amren, on the internet, will reveal within a matter of minutes that they advocate for racialism and eugenics. Secondly, when you read the interview transcript, Gaffney promotes a book written by Taylor that has a title with the most obvious indication of racism: “White Identity: Racial Consciousness for the 21st Century”. Gaffney introduced Taylor by saying:
“He formerly was an editor at The Washington Times and the author of six books, including ‘White Identity: Racial Consciousness for the 21st Century’ and also ‘Shadows of the Rising Sun.’”
As Gaffney was saying these words, he did not know that he was interviewing a racist? I find it very hard to believe. Further on in this interview Jared Taylor said in regards to Angela Merkel:
“I think she feels the weight of history upon her and is not in a position to say, ‘we must defend our borders in the name of our Germanness.’”
You would think that a “pro-Israel” guy like Gaffney would have questioned this, but he doesn’t. He just moves on as though nothing being said is shady and sketchy. Germany did do mass genocide in the name of “Germanness,” and the fact that Gaffney would ignore this and would advertise a book on “White identity” reveals that Gaffney is a total shill for the violent nationalist forces of our time.
Eugenics, Social-Darwinism and Nazism never went away; they just masqueraded themselves, only waiting for the right moment to fully reveal their faces. When the hands of cruelty are fully unleashed, only then will the world see the camps, the cold hands of the cult of science slaying men in the name of innovation; only then will you see the deserts of bodies, the absence of light. As Christ said: “And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.” (Matthew 24:12)
Brzezinski was also a member of the Jamestown Foundation, a American lobbyist group that is a major player for advocacy for the use of the military against all things Russian; he joined the group in 2003. In 2017, the same Jamestown Foundation accepted as a member Michael Vickers, one of the key players in arming the Islamic Mujahideen in Afghanistan.
These types of organizations, even if their boards have different members, will always recruit the same minds of militarism, the same people who were involved in pushing for Islamization, so that they can go before cameras and act as though they are part of a “war on terror.” The lobby for war has, by far, one of the most effective schemes of political deception one can witness: For years they strived for the advancement of Islamization, only to years later transform their personas to ones ‘against the jihad.’ They will jabber like broken records about Iran and the mullahs, about sharia and Islamic anti-Americanism, and then they will turn around, and like an anaconda that becomes thinner after consuming and digesting its prey, appear as though they never did such things, and act like they are the greatest warriors against Muslim jihadism — but in the end, they are still snakes.
There is a very interesting thing to observe: People like Daniel Pipes backed the jihad, now they are presenting themselves as ‘counter-jihadists.’ The whole ‘counter-jihad’ movement looks like a way to coverup the support for the jihadists. While they say they are here to ‘fight islamization,’ they have advanced Islamization — more than this, they have advocated for policies of Islamization, such as what they did in Afghanistan and Iraq — only to years later cover up their crimes by becoming ‘counter-jihadist.’ Richard Pipes once wrote: “Terrorism is a means to an end: it can be employed for limited ends as well as for unlimited destructiveness.” Now, while this was written in the context of explaining terrorism, it is a fact that the two Pipes — Richard and Daniel Pipes — and those like them, back the use of terrorism for the purpose of an agenda, like the arming of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. And after such destructive policies are done, they are always whitewashed as “mistakes” or “miscalculations.” Caspar W. Weinberger, who was the secretary of defense from 1981 to 1987, justified the anti-Soviet policy with obnoxiousness abrasiveness when he said: “Yes, we used a worst-case analysis. You should always use a worst-case analysis in this business. You can’t afford to be wrong. In the end, we won the Cold War, and if we won by too much, if it was overkill, so be it.”
When following the policy desired by Brzezinski and his ilk, the Americans used a major bank in Pakistan, BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International), as a conduit to funnel money to the Afghan Mujahideen. One New York Times report states that the former head of the CIA, William Casey, “found the bank quite handy in supplying the Afghan rebels with weapons at a time when American involvement had to be kept sub rosa.” In 1991 two journalists, Jonathan Beaty and SC Gwynne wrote an article for TIME entitled, B.C.C.I: The Dirtiest Bank of All, in which they reported on “a clandestine division of the bank called the ‘black network,’ which functions as a global intelligence operation and a mafia-like enforcement squad.” The two journalists also wrote on how “Casey began to use the outside — the Saudis, the Pakistanis, BCCI — to run what they couldn’t get through Congress.”
Just like in Operation Gladio — in which the CIA worked with European Nazis to create an anti-Soviet paramilitary force —, the CIA and other US operatives backed and armed Islamic Mujahideen fighters to destabilize the Soviet Union. William Casey did not want to keep Mujahideen fighters limited to Afghanistan, but wanted to spread them right into the Soviet Union itself. As journalist Steve Cole wrote: “Casey startled his Pakistani hosts by proposing that they take the Afghan war into enemy territory — into the Soviet Union itself. …Pakistani intelligence officers — partly inspired by Casey — began independently to train Afghans and funnel CIA supplies for scattered strikes against military installations, factories and storage depots within Soviet territory.”
Casey and secret service operatives wanted to intensify violent Islamization within Muslim regions of the Soviet Union. As Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid writes: “In 1986 the secret services of the United States, Great Britain, and Pakistan agreed on a plan to launch guerrilla attacks into Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Afghan Mujahideen units crossed the Amu Darya River in March 1987 and launched rocket attacks against villages in Tajikistan. Meanwhile, hundreds of Uzbek and Tajiik Muslims clandestinely travelled to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to study in madrassahs or to train as guerrilla fighters so that they could join the Mujahedeen. This was part of a wider U.S., Pakistani, and Saudi plan to recruit radical Muslims from around the world to fight with the Afghans. Between 1982 and 1992 thirty-five thousand Muslim radicals from forty-three Islamic countries fought for the Mujahedeen.” Under the guidance of William Casey, the CIA began to print and distribute Qurans translated to the Uzbek language, with the hopes of sparking jihadist frenzy against the Soviet Union. (See Soufan and Freedman, The Black Banners, p. 28)
The policy of arming Russia’s enemies with the goal of perpetuating conflict against Russia, is not just limited to the Muslim world in Asia, but in Europe as well. When war broke out between Russia and the Ukrainians in 2014, Brzezinski, just a few years away from his death (he died in 2017), wrote an article calling for the arming of Ukrainian fighters:
“ It would be much better to be open about it and to say to the Ukrainians and to those who may threaten Ukraine that if Ukrainians resist, they will have weapons. And we’ll provide some of those weapons in advance of the very act of invasion. Because in the absence of that, the temptation to invade and to preempt may become overwhelming. But what kind of weapons is important. And in my view, they should be weapons designed particularly to permit the Ukrainians to engage in effective urban warfare of resistance. … Accordingly, I feel that we should make it clear to the Ukrainians that if they are determined to resist, as they say they are and seemingly they are trying to do so (albeit not very effectively), we will provide them with anti-tank weapons, hand-held anti-tank weapons, hand-held rockets—weapons capable for use in urban short range fighting.”
Here’s the big problem with arming Ukraine: the country’s military is full of Nazis. Artuz Sheva did an interesting report on this in which it stated that in August of 2018, the Ukrainian government established the official Ukrainian military slogan as, “Glory to Ukraine! – Glory to the Heroes!” This was the declaration of the UPA, the Ukraine Insurgent Army, who sided with the Nazis during the Second World War, and who exterminated 35,000 and up to 60,000 Poles — mostly women, children and unarmed men — in Volhynia in 1943, and up to 100,000 Poles if you include other regions. The Arutz Sheva report states that “Present neo-Nazi Ukrainian military formations established by order of the Ukrainian authorities appropriated the slogan from the end of 2013 onward. Now, the Ukrainian Nazi collaborator’s greeting will become the official salute in that country’s army. The President also added that introducing the words Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the Heroes! as an official military greetings was thoroughly discussed with servicemen and veterans, and only then the decision was made.”
A member of the Ukrainian parliament, Jury Shuchevich is the son of the Nazi SS commander, Roman Shuchevich, who organized the Volhynia massacre in which tens of thousands of Poles were exterminated. Jury Shuchevich recently made a speech for an exhibition inside the Ukrainian parliament, praising leading Ukrainian Nazi collaborators of World War II:
“The fact of us having an independence today, in truth, is a huge cornerstone of the edifice called today the Ukrainian State. That huge cornerstone was laid into this edifice by this very struggle (of the Ukrainian nationalists) and by these very people (Ukrainian Nazi-collaborators), and I beseech you all very much to visit this exhibition which the Congress of the Ukrainian nationalists is carrying on in commemoration of this date.”
Andriy Parubiy is currently the head of the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhona Rada), and he founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine, which was a Nazi party. The ideology of this Nazi party was based on the work of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which is under the umbrella of the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN), the very organization who Paul Weyrich, the founder of the Heritage Foundation, collaborated with. Here we can see the collusion between European nationalists and Nazis and American lobbyists for nationalism. Parubiy was also a commandant of the Euromaidan, a wave of Ukrainian nationalist demonstrations in Kiev in 2014 that pushed for the ousting of the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych.
One of the reasons why the Ukrainian government has not been able to abate the Nazi mercenaries — part of Azov Batallion and Right Sector — who were fighting the Russians in 2014, is because the Ukrainian military itself is full of Nazis. An article published by the Nation makes this observation:
“One reason behind Kiev’s inability and unwillingness to rein in the battalions is because they remain the fiercest, most battle-hardened units in the armed forces; it’s hard to send in the National Guard to restore order when the National Guard itself consists of ultranationalist formations. An equally disturbing reason is that Ukraine’s far right enjoys the support of two extraordinarily powerful politicians: Parliament Speaker Andriy Parubiy and Interior Minister Arsen Avakov. Both men played a critical role in harnessing neo-Nazi street muscle during the winter 2013–14 Maidan uprising that resulted in the ouster of corrupt, albeit democratically elected, president Viktor Yanukovych. Parubiy’s ties with the far right go back decades: He co-founded and led the Social-National Party of Ukraine, which used neo-Nazi symbols and whose name, according to Der Spiegel, is an intentional reference to the Nazi Party.”
The Interior Minister of Ukraine, Arsen Avakov, is another Nazi who organized the Maidan’s “self-defense” groups into a formidable force of paramilitary armies who would give devastating strikes to the Russians in Donbass. These paramilitaries also used all sorts of cruelty to strike fear into the hearts of their enemies, including rape, torture, murder and kidnapping. After getting elected as Interior Minister, Avakov became the Chief of Ukraine’s National Police. Whats quite telling is that the Ukrainian police was trained, funded and armed by the US and was praised as a exemplary example of America’s instrumental efforts for bringing Ukraine to democracy. Well, after all this, Ukraine’s police ended up being led by Nazi, Arsen Avakov. And we are not talking about 1943, we are talking about 2014. In November of 2014, Rabbi Yaakov Bleich, Ukraine’s chief rabbi, decried the fact that Arsen Avakov appointed Azov Battalion deputy commander Vadym Troyan to Kiev Oblast chief of police.
What is shocking is the fact that Ukraine, a country who the US backed and armed, has open supporters of Nazism in its government and military. Just as you have think-tank artists who supported the jihad to only come out as ‘counter-jihad,’ you have these same types of lobbyists who would back the arming of the Ukrainians regardless of its Nazi acolytes while touting themselves as champions of freedom and democracy.
What we see here is almost a trail of events that lead to the other, with an escalation from one scenario to the other. You have the arming of the Mujahideen which leads to the formation of Al-Qaeda; from this you have 9/11 which would be used as justification for the Iraq War; from here you have a major destabilization of Iraq which floods into Syria, another country that the US destabilized. With these countries in chaos, what sparks is a migrant crises from the Middle East to Europe, which then sparks nationalism amongst European countries, the goal of NATO going all the way back to Gladio. Was it all set up to be this way? Perhaps. It would not be surprising if this were the case. What we know for certain is that we are currently witnessing the outpouring of nationalism; be it Turco-Islamic nationalism, Germanic nationalism, Turanianism, Japanese nationalism, national egoisms are intensifying. It is all sourced in pride, “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” (Proverbs 16:18)