By Walid Shoebat and Theodore Shoebat
The shooter in Manhattan, Sayfullo Saipov, jumped out of his vehicle with a pellet gun and paintball gun before cops shot him. As we read in one report:
Saipov jumped out with two fake guns, one paintball gun and another pellet gun, and was shot by police officers, according to the New York Times. The incident is being investigated as an act of terrorism, and there are multiple reports saying Saipov yelled Allahu akbar after the truck crash.
Why would Saipov arm himself with a paintball gun and pellet gun, intending to murder people? Unless of course Saipov was set up. A terrorist wanting to murder people would not come with a pellet gun or a paintball gun, especially if he was confident enough to get into a gun battle with police officers. A Muslim who wants to die while fighting in Jihad would use a real weapon because he wants to actually kill people. But this is not what happened. Saipov used fake firearms, with the intent of fighting and dying in Jihad. If he knew they were fake, it would have been considered suicide in Islam and thus a sin (haram). Saipov took the paintball and pellet guns, thinking that he was going to actually shoot people and have a fire fight with police. He would have never done this if he knew the guns were fake.
Its quite suspicious. If we can speculate, here is our theory: government agents, acting like Islamic terrorist recruiters, gave this guy a pellet gun and a paintball gun, making him think that they were real firearms.
It is not far-fetched to say that the FBI helps orchestrate Islamic terrorist attacks. The two Islamic terrorists in the Garland shooting that took place in 2015, were being instigated by an FBI agent posing as a jihadist. As one report from CBS reveals:
The terror attack in Garland, Texas, two years ago was the first claimed by ISIS on U.S. soil. It’s mostly forgotten because the two terrorists were killed by local cops before they managed to murder anyone. … we were surprised to discover just how close the FBI was to one of the terrorists. Not only had the FBI been monitoring him for years, there was an undercover agent right behind him when the first shots were fired.
The FBI hired a Sudanese refugee named Dabla Deng to befriend one of the terrorists in the Garland shooting, Elton Ibrahim Simpson. As the same report reads:
Dabla Deng spent three years pretending to be Simpson’s friend, and was paid $132,000 by the FBI. He taped more than 1,500 hours of their conversations and finally recorded him talking about traveling overseas to wage jihad.
The shooters in Garland almost murdered an unarmed security guard and could have killed more people. Why did the FBI allow this attack to happen, knowing that people could have been murdered? Its because the US government wanted this attack to happen. Whats the agenda behind this? To spark nationalism.
It would not be surprising at all if this attack in Manhattan was allowed to boost Trump’s image.
The CIA played this same strategy in Europe when they orchestrated several terrorist attacks as part of Operation Gladio, a NATO project to conduct terrorist attacks and then blame the Communists. The purpose behind it was to spark nationalism and maintain anti-Communist sentiment. It would not be surprising at all to find out that this attack in Manhattan was allowed and directed in order to boost up the Counterjihad movement which, as we have shown, is part of a conspiracy being done to advance nationalism, racialism and eugenics.
Homosexuality, drugs, the occult, eugenics. What does this combination remind us of? It is the very combination that the Nazis consisted of. The Counterjihad movement, as we have been showing since last year, is filled with criminal elements, occultism, homosexuality and genocidal ideology. The Counterjihad movement is the religion of Sodom under the guise of “combating sharia.”
I believe that the Counterjihad movement is part of one government measure to shift the political climate to the acceptance of racialism and Social Darwinism, and I will present evidence for my claim in this in depth article.
People’s acceptance of eugenics is generally determined by a narrative. Both the Left and the Right advance eugenics, what makes them different is their manners of propaganda, the words they use. With the Left its about class and internationalism, with the Right its about “fighting terrorism” and nationalism.
If I say, Planned Parenthood is eugenist, then the liberals would object to such a statement, but the conservatives would agree. But, if I say that the handicap children of Muslim immigrants are draining the system through government welfare, then conservatives have no issue with this way of talking. As long as the complaint against the handicap taking government aid has the word “Muslim” in it, then no one in right wing circles is going to feel disturbed, quite the contrary, they will give much support to such a statement.
There is one Right-wing website that comes to mind in this particular push for eugenics: PJ Media, which is owned by the Jewish billionaire, Aubrey Chernick and his wife, Joyce Chernick. On their PJ Media website is published an article entitled, The Problem of Inbreeding in Islam, written by Danish Social Darwinist, Nicolai Sennels. In this article one will find ways of talking paralleled to that of the Nazi eugenists of old, sprinkled with typical Counterjihad language. In one part of this article Sennels writes:
“It is estimated that one third of all handicapped people in Copenhagen have a foreign background. Sixty four percent of school children in Denmark with Arabic parents are illiterate after 10 years in the Danish school system. The same study concludes that in reading ability, mathematics, and science, the pattern is the same: ‘The bilingual (largely Muslim) immigrants’ skills are exceedingly poor compared to their Danish classmates.’”
While he targets the handicap, he does it under the guise of attacking Muslims. This is the strategy that they utilize. Its not about attacking Islam, its about using nationalist sentiments to get people desensitized to the idea of seeing handicap people, who are given benefits, as enemies. In another part of the article, Sennels writes:
“Expenses related to mentally and physically handicapped Muslim immigrants, for instance, severely drain the budgets and resources of our societies. Look at Denmark, for example: one third of the budget for the country’s schools is spent on children with special needs. Muslim children are grossly overrepresented among these children. More than half of all children in schools for children with mental and physical handicaps in Copenhagen are foreigners — of whom Muslims are by far the largest group. One study concludes that ‘foreigners inbreeding costs our municipalities millions” because of the many handicapped children and adults.’”
Notice the strategy used: he is speaking no differently than the eugenists of the Third Reich, but just as long as he mentions the words “Muslim immigrants,” it can be heard by the Right-wing with ease. Do you know what this type of language means? This:
This is a poster from Nazi Germany’s T-4 Euthanasia Program, and it reads:
“This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too.”
The idea that handicap people are draining the system, and that those government funds should be used for the benefit of ‘healthy’ people is being propagated by outlets like PJ Media, with the only difference being that it is done behind the face of “countering jihad.” If you think that people like Sennels and the agents behind outlets like PJ Media are simply doing this to combat the destruction of Western civilization, then just look at how they push the war on humanity itself, by promoting that most genocidal belief that there are ‘too many people on earth.’
Sennels wrote another article entitled, “Food Crises are Caused by Overpopulation,” and here he promotes eugenics under the guise of fighting Islamic immigration. He says the same thing that any eugenist or population control advocate would say, but he does it all in the name of being a counterjihadist.
Sennels writes: “Take heed: Overpopulation is no less a problem than violent Islam.” The article really signifies how the “Counterjihad” movement has been transitioning from being just anti-Islam to becoming its ultimately desired manifestation: anti-human. In the same article this Danish Nazi writes:
“Pay poor people in the poor countries to have less children. In this way they do not have to have a lot of children in order to secure themselves when they get old – and they can afford to feed and educate the few children they have. We should support the families with full aid (e.g. 2 dollars pr. day) if they have no or one child, half aid if they have two children and no support if they have more than two children. An educated and well nourished population is the indispensable basis for functioning democracies and economies.”
The hatred of the poor, the idea of the poor having more children as being negative to society, is really a marginalizing of human beings, and is merely a layer of the true objective of these anti-humans: the extermination of people. The propaganda of the eugenist always begins by targeting those who are deemed as insignificant — the poor and the impoverished — and portraying them as criminals or as liabilities to the society. The purpose of doing this is not to strictly get rid of the poor, or the criminals, but to condition us to be indifferent to the State imposing eugenic policies. Eugenics is always first imposed on the criminals, on the terrorists, on the abandoned, on the forsaken, on the ones most don’t care about. They do this so that you don’t care about what they are doing, until of course, its happening to you.
The anti-human belief system that Counterjihad outlets are promoting comes in two different varieties: one is an explicit promotion of evil, and the other is normalization of evil. There was a video I remember watching of a pro-Trump assembly in which a Satanist and a Catholic stood side by side rallying for their presidential candidate. The lady said that she was a Catholic, but that she agreed with the Satanist, and she showed her obvious willingness to stand with the devil worshipper. You can see the video here:
What is happening in this video is normalization. The Catholic woman is not explicitly declaring that she hails Satan, but by standing next to a Satanist as an ally, it makes Satanists in society appear normal and more tolerable. By normalizing something, people will not necessarily agree with it, but they will tolerate it. Toleration of evil is an incremental step towards accepting evil. There is a sinister indifferentism that lies in the heart of the general populace, and in the midst of evil it nonchalantly says either “Its wrong” or “I disagree.”
Some great evil may come before us, and these people will not say, “This is an abomination, worthy of death and destruction.” Rather, they will say, “Its wrong” or “I disagree.” It is a strategy that people utilize to defend the toleration of evil while at the same time cleaning their own reputations or preventing debate. When someone confronts them on their normalization of the evil, they will say, “Why are you arguing with me? I already said its wrong,” as if a dead expression of disagreement equates to true zeal against the onslaughts of the sinister.
Nowhere in the Scriptures nor in the writings of the holy fathers will you ever find such lethargic expressions as “Its wrong” or “I disagree.” When the Jews told Christ: “We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God”, Christ did not even say, “I agree,” but rather:
“If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do.” (John 8:38-44)
“let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:37)
Christ wants us to be emphatic, zealous and ardent about our convictions on what is right and what is evil. When we say, “I disagree with it but I believe in defending the right to do it,” we are normalizing evil, because we are making it into something that can be in society, that can be in our lives or in the midst of our families. This is why we see, so many times, women say, “I disagree with homosexuality, but I love my gay hair designer.” Or, “I believe homosexuality is wrong, but I love my gay cousin and I allow him to spend time with my children.”
This is normalization, the process of saying something is wrong while allowing it to thrive in society. It is like allowing a python to slither around inside your home, while saying, “While I don’t like snakes, I believe in its right to crawl in my home.” Your disapproval is expressed, but that which you disapprove of still remains there. Its like a mother who tells her child that his bad behavior “is wrong,” but always spares the child the rod. Disapproval, without disdain for toleration of that which is disapproved, is like a tree that only produces rotten fruit. The armies of degeneracy have besieged the walls of christendom, they have razed to the ground all that which is beautiful, and the normalizer says, “Its wrong,” and “I disagree.”
When Phinehas saw the idolatry and debauchery of Israel, he did not say, “Its wrong,” but rather, in the words of the Lord, he was was moved with my zeal against them (Numbers 25:11). Its not just about disapproving, or saying that something “is wrong,” its about an internal flame of zeal that is rooted in the zeal of God. It was not purely a reaction, but simply the truth incarnating through action; for God is Truth, and all thirst for justice, is ultimately a desire to see the truth manifest, be it in our hearts, be it before our eyes, and it is done in unity with God. All that is true, flows from God, and that which is done in truth, is done with God. When you are with God, you will not be tepid in your disposition when seeing evil, but, ascending to the mountain of truth, your spirit will have that flame ignited by zeal.
The problem with the Counterjihad is that it is solely a reaction to something. Anytime a movement is just a reaction, then it is a vacuum ready to be filled. Something that is purely a reaction, is empty, because in such a situation, any group — be they good or evil — will be accepted by the movement as long as it agrees with the reaction. I saw this myself with the Tea Party movement. I remember attending a Tea Party rally, and it was filled with sodomites, short haired lesbians, Mormons and just a bunch of filthy degenerate looking people. I remember asking my father, “Why are there all of these sodomites here?” He said, “Because all of these people just care about getting their taxes lowered.” The Tea Party was a reaction to taxation, and thats it, nothing more, nothing less. And for this, it became nothing but a fragmented mass of lunatics. There was no root to Christian civilization, there was no root to Christian culture, it was all pure Americanist drivel.
The Catholic Faith is not a reaction, it simply is. People have a misconception that the Catholic Church reacts to evil. Its actually vice versa. All of the evil that has come about against the moral order, is merely a reaction to Catholic truth. Atheism is a reaction to the Catholic teaching on the reality of God; all unitarian cults are a reaction to the Catholic teaching on the Divinity of Christ; Protestantism is a reaction to the primacy and authority of the Catholic Church.
The reason why movements that are solely a reaction turn vacuous and evil, is because they have no balance. By balance I mean a harmony between justice and mercy. When everything is about one topic, lets say, Islam, and not about all of the evils of the world, then what happens is a situation in which you have a people lethargic to the transgressions of their own society while fixating solely on the sins of foreigners and outsiders. Meanwhile, what else always happens in this occurrence is that nefarious groups, people that are for degeneracy, euthanasia, eugenics and the like, are accepted to the reaction group because, regardless of their perfidious beliefs, they are in agreement to the reaction. The movement against Islam then becomes a group from just being “counterjihad,” to being an advocacy group for eugenics, racialism and homosexuality, all under a guise of being “anti-Sharia.” A pure reaction group is, at the end of the day, an empty shell. The renown Scottish theologian, Richard of St. Victor, warned about those who “go beyond the bounds of proper balance.” (1)
It is like the sons of Jacob slaughtering the Shechemites because Shechem raped their sister Dinah. Even though Shechem agreed to be circumcised and was going to marry Dina, and even though the entire city of Shechem agreed to be circumcised and to trade with the Israelites, and to be at peace with them, and to be one with them, the sons of Jacob in their exceeding imbalance slaughtered the people who allowed them to settle in their land. In this show of justice, there was imbalance, and even though they felt that they were doing good, it was not in harmony with the charity. Thus, it was excessive. Now, the Scripture says that not only Shechem agreed to be circumcised, but all the city of Shechem agreed to endure this right. Shechem went before all the city and said:
“These men are peaceable and willing to dwell with us: let them trade in the land, and till it, which being large and wide wanteth men to till it: we shall take their daughters for wives, and we will give them ours. One thing there is for which so great a good is deferred: We must circumcise every male among us, following the manner of the nation. And their substance, and cattle, and all that they possess, shall be ours: only in this let us condescend, and by dwelling together, we shall make one people.” (Genesis 34:21-23)
The people agreed to do the rite taught by God to Abraham, they agreed to become one with Israel, God’s nation. And the Scripture recounts that the sons of Jacob answered Sichem and his father deceitfully (Genesis 34:13) when they promised that Dinah would be given to Shechem after the men of his city were circumcised, meaning, that they gave their word with bad intentions. This was their chance to bring the people of Canaan to becoming one with Israel, but they wanted nothing to do with unity, they wanted bloody justice without the balancing force of charity. The Scripture says that “Jacob, Simeon and Levi, the brothers of Dina, taking their swords, entered boldly into the city, and slew all the men” (Genesis 34:25), this was done out of an imbalance excess of justice, which is truly not justice at all. It was not just to slaughter all the men of the city even though they agreed to do and did the rite of circumcision. Richard of St. Victor, in a beautiful style of prose, describes the imbalance demonstrated in the extermination of the Shechemites:
“See how much they do; see how much they do for the sake of Dina. For the sake of Dina, masculine parts are circumcised. For the sake of Dina those circumcised are killed. All this is for the sake of Dina, all for the sake of human shamefacedness.” (2)
The people of Shechem were willing to conform to the rule of Israel, and to become one with this nation, but anger and hatred clouded the intellect of the sons of Jacob, and they killed a people who had extended a hand of unity. After they killed the men and took their women captive, the Scripture says that “Jacob said to Simeon and Levi: You have troubled me, and made me hateful to the Chanaanites” (Genesis 34:25), which means that Jacob did not desire an extermination of the people, but rather the union with them. When Abraham settled in the land of the Canaanites, it says that they had made league with Abram. (Genesis 14:13) The Canaanites of Gibeon made a covenant with Israel, and when the other Canaanites came to annihilate them, Joshua defended them in what is one of the greatest battles in the history of the saints. King Saul tried to exterminate the Canaanites of Gibeon, and the Scripture says:
“Saul sought to slay them out of zeal, as it were for the children of Israel and Juda” (2 Samuel 21:2)
King Saul was fixated, not on the things of God, but on this ‘strength of our people’ nationalism. Because of this God struck Israel with a famine, and declared to King David that:
“It is for Saul, and his bloody house, because he slew the Gabaonites.” (2 Samuel 21:1)
God honored the unity between Abraham and the Canaanites, between Joshua and the Canaanites of Gibeon, and He even demanded that King David make a sacrifice in the land of an Amorite named Orhan, declaring:
“build an altar to the Lord God in the thrashingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.” (1 Chronicles 21:18)
God wanted the Canaanites and the Israelites to become one nation, but this beautiful truth was not seen by the clouded sight of the sons of Jacob when they butchered the people of Shechem.
All of the Right-wing groups that we have been witnessing have actually been failing, and the reason behind this is because it is for a continuously changing face that ceaselessly conforms to trends, not for truth that is rooted in thousands of years of civilizing. This movement of blood and soil, is one that exalts race and not the Faith that civilizes a race; it worships civilization, and the truth that is the foundation of civilization. The pernicious vicissitudes of the wavering movements of sycophants, will always end in being absorbed by the trending tides of tyranny.
Normalizers and explicit promoters both do their part in advancing the cause of antichrist, but the normalizers are the most dangerous, because they do everything under the guise of being orthodox. If an organization wants to promote Nazism, they will not call themselves, “The Nazi Party,” they would rather give themselves titles like, “Institute for the Study Of Human Biodiversity,” or “The Institute for National Policy.” They don’t call themselves automatically Nazis, because they know that people would automatically react with revulsion. How they get people to believe in their ideology is simply done by tweaking the narrative and changing the title. Most people are not dictated by truth, rather they are controlled by narratives. The narrative in this case is: Swastikas, Heil Hitlers and Nazi salutes. People see this and automatically know, this is Nazism, stay away.
But what if the narrative is modified just a little bit? From talk of exterminating the “lower races,” Swastikas and gas chambers, its now intellectuals who simply care about their country and its people. Before you hear the words, “Hail, Hitler,” you will hear the words, “Hail facts.” Before you hear the words, “Exterminate the foreigner,” you will hear the extolling words of, “The strength of our people.” Before you hear the words, “Kill the weak,” you will hear, “We must protect the health of the nation.” Before the carnage is seen, before the barrel of the gun is before your face, the empty words of “I disagree” and “Its wrong” will be heard. “Its wrong… I disagree,” what empty and meaningless words are these; these are the terms of the normalizers of evil, and the explicit promoters of evil come to merely finish the job once all boundaries are destroyed. Outlets like PJ Media will many times condemn racism and eugenics, but at the same time they will normalize eugenics and racialism. For example, one PJ Media article written by Rick Moran says that racism is genetic:
“But it’s far too easy to become trapped by stereotypes and wallow in generalities about this or that race or ethnicity. It’s part of the human condition, as is fear of ‘the other’ and a propensity for everyone to live, work, love, and die around people who look like you. Try as we might — ‘raising consciousness’; exposing children to different races, lifestyles, and religions — it doesn’t matter. There is a genetic predisposition to avoid those who are different. And that includes all races, not just whites or blacks.”
While Moran does not explicitly promote racism, he normalizes it by making it genetic, just like many false teachers will says that homosexuality is genetic. The intellectuals who are promoting eugenics follow a parallel strategy. They will promote eugenist policies, but initially they will do so in the context of fighting terrorism. Once people, intoxicated by the hubris of nationalism, become desensitized to this, the acolytes of eugenics move to targeting another group. From terrorism and criminals, the whirling ladder of the eugenist descends into a war upon the whole of mankind.
It is not coincidental nor irrelevant that the article written by Sennels about population control was published on the “Gates of Vienna” website. The founder of the site is Edward S. May, who goes by the pseudonym, Baron Bodissey. May was in the 2007 Counterjihad Summit in Brussels, the event that commenced the Counterjihad as a major international movement. The Summit took place in the EU parliament in Brussels, and was organized by the neo-Nazi EU politician, Filip DeWinter. Is it any wonder that the Counterjihad movement would evolve from being just against Islam, to being a force to advance the cause of homosexuality, eugenics and nazism?
Robert Spencer was also in the 2007 Counterjihad Summit in Brussels, and should it be of any wonder or shock, that he has spoken for the Sweden Democrats, a political party founded by Nazis and operated by neo-Nazis? Should it be a shock to us that Robert Spencer publishes the works of Norwegian eugenist, Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen (AKA, “Fjordman)? Should it be of any wonder to us that Spencer’s website expresses much support for the social-Darwinist Thilo Sarrazin? Should it surprise us that this same Spencer, just this year, spoke for the neo-Nazi and neo-pagan organization, Vakur, in Iceland? This is not coincidental, and its all part of the agenda of the Counterjihad Summit in 2007, since it was indeed organized by Filip DeWinter, a neo-Nazi EU politician.
THE COUNTERJIHAD AND OPERATION GLADIO
Could it be possible (and I am speculating here) that this Counterjihad movement is part of the covert CIA operations to create secret paramilitary armies in Europe that were being done from the 1940s onward? Perhaps examining some facts will shift our thinking and our awareness about the various Right-wing movements of our time, and this speculation becomes reality. From 1948 to the year 1990, the CIA, alongside the secret services of European countries, recruited and trained neo-Nazis, even former members of the Nazi Party, to form secret armies to fight the Soviets. It was taking place throughout Europe; in Italy, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, France and even Turkey. The name given to this project was “Operation Gladio.” It was directed from the NATO headquarters in Brussels, the same city of the EU parliament, where the 2007 Counterjihad Summit was done. But the masterminds behind it were the CIA and the British MI6. According to the British military historian, Rupert Allason:
“The people who inspired it were the British and American intelligence agencies.”
In 1985, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), wrote a report, which was archived by the CIA, on how American intelligence agents were working and collaborating with Nazis to counter the Soviets. In one part of the document it reads:
“Lacking an intelligence network targeted against its former ally, the Soviet Union, U.S. intelligence units turned to European anti-Communist resources to fill information gaps. These resources included former German and East European intelligence operatives and East European emigre political groups. Among them were Nazis (including Gestapo and SS members) and members of East European Fascist organizations. They were considered invaluable as informants. For example, GAO [Government Accountability Office] was told that in order to learn more about German communists, U.S. intelligence officers decided to question former Gestapo and SS members who had worked against such Communists.”
Notice what I underlined on the image of the CIA document above: the American government was working with “former German and East European emigre political groups. Among them were Nazis.” This is very interesting and revealing, and will be shown to be a central clue in our investigation on the Counterjihad and the rise of Darwinism in the world. This is because major organizations like the Heritage Foundation, the Free Congress Foundation (who Robert Spencer works with and praises), and well known media outlets and activists like David Horowitz of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (under which Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch functions), worked with a Hungarian Nazi named Laslo Pasztor who immigrated to America after the Second World War and began working within Washington under the Nixon Administration.
As we shall see in a little bit, Pasztor was commissioned by the US government to recruit Eastern European Nazis and nationalists to gather intelligence for the CIA and to produce and help spread anti-Soviet propaganda. As we shall also see, Pasztor collaborated with David Horowitz, William S. Lind, and Roger Kimball of PJ Media, to create a documentary on “the history of Marxism” that was produced by the Free Congress Foundation, which was founded by Nazi collaborator Paul Weyrich who hired Robert Spencer in the early 2000s to work for the same foundation.
Eastern European Nazis, working with the US government and with Counterjihad activists and think-tanks, all to go against Marxism, fits perfectly into the Gladio agenda. This also may tie into the fact that, as we showed in our second in depth article on the Counterjihad, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are working with Eastern and Central European neo-Nazis as part of their “Stop the Islamization of Europe” (SIOE) organization.
“The Grey Wolves group, with which he was associated at the time of the shooting, was linked to an underground network known as Gladio.
This was set up with CIA support in a number of European countries during the Cold War to prepare resistance to a possible Soviet invasion.
In both Italy and Turkey, Gladio networks are believed to have been behind numerous bombings and assassinations.
In Italy, the networks have been exposed and dismantled; in Turkey, they are still widely believed to exist as a so-called “deep state”, with support from elements of the military.”
There were numerous attacks carried out by these recruited terrorists in Italy, which were done in order to create propaganda against the Left to make the Right look good. For example, in 1969, a brutal bombing was done in the Piazza Fontana in Milan, in which 16 people were killed and 80 injured. Most of the victims were farmers who, after selling their produce in the local market, were depositing their earnings in the Farmer’s Bank. At first the bombing was blamed on the Left. There were numerous other terrorist attacks in Italy in the late 60s to the 80s, the worst of which was the bombing of a waiting room at the Bologna railway station in 1980, in which 85 people were slaughtered and 200 injured.
These terrorist attacks were done as a way to make propaganda against the Communists, and also to scare people away from voting Left-wing. *To learn more about Gladio, there is an in depth study on this subject written by Swiss historian The CIA documented on the Right-wing terrorists and pointed out that there were indeed Masonic elements running these violent organizations, stated:Neo-Fascist terrorists were involved, including a prominent member of the Propaganda Due Masonic Lodge, which has been involved in a variety of crimes including the murder of journalists.
“In general, neo-fascism in Northern Italy is directed by former officer operating under the name of ‘Colonel M.’ The movement which includes in its ranks General Mario Caracciolo appears to be closely linked with certain Free Mason elements through Generals Navarra Viggiani and Alessandro Piazzoni.”
In a 1993 report published on the Independent, journalist Fiona Leney wrote:
“Those convicted in the original trial included four young neo-fascists, given life sentences for planting the bomb, two secret service officers and Licio Gelli, grand-master of the banned P2 Masonic Lodge.”
The same report documents how the bombings were part of a plan devised by government forces, that is, NATO’s Operation Gladio, in which Right-wing terrorists were recruited for the purpose of creating a secret army. The terrorist attacks were planned out and allowed in order to shift political climate:
“The attacks, usually bombings aimed at slaughtering as many civilians as possible, were initially blamed on the extreme left. Now it is accepted that they were part of a ‘Strategy of Tension’ intended to scare voters away from western Europe’s most popular communist party and into the arms of the Christian Democrats. … In 1984 a convicted neo-fascist, Vincenzo Vinciguerra, was questioned by Bologna investigators. He testified that he had been recruited for an earlier car bomb attack near Venice by Gladio, a shadow army set up by the Italian secret services in the 1950s as part of a Nato plan to create guerrilla resistance in the event of a Soviet invasion or communist takeover in Nato countries. By the time Vinciguerra carried out his attack, in 1972, Gladio was considering pre-emptive action against the increasingly popular Communist Party, according to General Gerardo Serravalle, the secret service chief in charge of the Gladio network.
Forensic reports demonstrated conclusively that explosive from one Gladio arms dump had been used in the Venice car bombing. In Bologna, says Mr Trombetti, experts concluded that the blast, which demolished one wing of the station, was caused by ‘retrieved military explosive’. He is reluctant to be more specific but says one can draw one’s own conclusions.”
Vincenzo Vinciguerra is currently serving a life sentence for terrorism. He did a car bomb and murdered three members of the Right-wing Carabinieri. The objective of the killings was to make it seem that it was the Left who murdered them. There is a video that you can watch of Vinciguerra explaining Gladio, its recruitment and agenda:
People may ask, ‘Why would the Italian government recruit terrorists for the purpose of causing terrorist attacks, and then put these same recruits in prison?” The answer is that it was not the entire Italian government who was involved, but an inner circle. There is a CIA within the CIA, an FBI within the FBI, a secret service agency within the secret service agency. There are agents who really believe that they are doing a mission for their country, unbeknownst of the schemes being devised by the inner circle of agents higher in the hierarchy.
This deliberate lack of transparency between agents and government officials was revealed by the resolution issued by the EU in 1990, which spoke of “operational bodies which are not subject to any form of democratic control and are of a completely clandestine nature at a time when greater Community cooperation in the field of security is a constant subject of discussion.” It also spoke of how “these organisations operated and continue to operate completely outside the law since they are not subject to any parliamentary control and frequently those holding the highest government and constitutional posts are kept in the dark as to these matters”. Gladio was reflective of the reality of a government within a government, or an outside government manipulating the political climate of nations.
In Operation Gladio, the CIA worked with the mass murderer and torturer for the Nazis, the SS-Hauptsturmfuhrer Klaus Barbie, who was so sadistic and cruel in his crimes that people called him “the butcher of Lyon.” Barbie was amongst the worst of the worst, a Mengele type. He would decapitate people, and even trained his dogs to mount children. One publication describes his crimes as such:
“fondling women on his lap while whipping his victims, calling into his interrogation rooms naked blondes and German shepherd dogs trained for bestiality.”
One report describes his evil actions:
“The crimes for which he was convicted four years ago included a roundup and deportation to death camps of 44 children and seven teachers from Izieu, a village near Lyon, and 86 people at the General Union of French Jews.
He also was found guilty of deporting several hundred people on the last train to leave Lyon shortly before the Nazis retreated, and for his role in individual tortures, deportations and killings of 38 French Resistance activists and 21 Jews.”
But what did we do with this butcher? The US government recruited him to conduct their Gladio operations against the Soviets. There is a documentary that recounts this:
US documents further confirm American collaboration with Klaus Barbie.One document states:
“A special 1983 Department of Justice report on Klaus Barbie found that U.S. Army Counter-Intelligence Corps officers had employed him, protected him from extradition to France where he was wanted for war crimes, and organized his escape to South America.”
A report published by the Guardian in 2001 revealed that the CIA had supported neo-Fascist terrorists and that they had received their explosives from Germany:
“US intelligence services instigated and abetted rightwing terrorism in Italy during the 1970s, a former Italian secret service general has claimed.
The allegation was made by General Gianadelio Maletti, a former head of military counter-intelligence, at the trial last week of rightwing extremists accused of killing 16 people in the bombing of a Milan bank in 1969 – the first time such a charge has been made in a court of law by a senior Italian intelligence figure.
Gen Maletti, comannder of the counter-intelligence section of the military intelligence service from 1971 to 1975, said his men had discovered that a rightwing terrorist cell in the Venice region had been supplied with military explosives from Germany.”
General Gianadelio Maletti revealed that an objective of the CIA was to increase nationalist sentiment in Italy:
“The CIA [Central Intelligence Agency], following the directives of its government, wanted to create an Italian nationalism capable of halting what it saw as a slide to the left and, for this purpose, it may have made use of rightwing terrorism… I believe this is what happened in other countries as well.”
Maletti said that the Nixon administration superintended the operation:
“Don’t forget that [former US president Richard] Nixon was in charge and Nixon was a strange man, a very intelligent politician but a man of rather unorthodox initiatives.”
Nixon’s administration was involved in Operation Gladio and gave full authority to the CIA to direct and conduct covert operations for the US government. In 1970, Nixon signed the National Security Decision Memorandum 40, that stated:
“By covert action operations I mean those activities which, although designed to further official U.S. programs and policies abroad, are so planned and executed that the hand of the U.S. Government is not apparent to unauthorized persons.
The covert actions of the U.S. Government abroad shall be subject to coordination and control by the Director of Central Intelligence. All such covert action operations, unless otherwise specifically assigned by the President, shall be carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency.”
Nixon’s administration worked directly with a Nazi of the Third Reich, named Laszlo Pasztor, a member of the Hungarian Nazi party, the Arrow Cross, which was responsible for the extermination of ten to fifteen thousand Jews, Serbs, Gypsies and others, and for deporting 80,000 people to death camps in Austria. Pasztor was commissioned by the US government to recruit neo-Nazis in Eastern Europe. This operation was in accordance to Gladio, which was to recruit Nazis and far-Right activists and militants. Pasztor would eventually work with Paul Weyrich, the founder of the Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation, and in the early 2000s, Weyrich would work directly with none other than Robert Spencer, one of the figures invited to the 2007 Counterjihad Summit in Brussels, the headquarters of both the EU and NATO, and from where Operation Gladio was directed.
Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch is ran by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, led by David Horowitz. There is a financial report that shows that the David Horowitz Freedom Center received over a quarter of a million dollars from the eugenist organization, the Sarah Scaife Foundation.
The David Horowitz Freedom Center is an umbrella organization that runs also Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch. What this means is that both Jihad Watch and the Freedom Center are financially backed by eugenists.
Both David Horowitz and Roger Kimball of PJ Media did a documentary with Pasztor, and it was produced by the Free Congress Foundation, the very organization Robert Spencer worked for and still praises.
Robert Spencer wrote in the acknowledgments section in one book:
“Thanks also to Paul Weyrich, Lisa Dean, Clay Rossi, and all at the Free Congress Foundation”.
These pure and holy Right-wingers, they would not hesitate to scream from the tops of their lungs if a liberal is caught with a terrorist, and all the while they have no hesitation to be in a documentary with a Nazi named Laslo Pasztor.
In this documentary, you can hear what seems to be a sympathy for Nazis and Nazism as a victim of and fighter against Marxism. In one part of the documentary, the narrator, William Lind, says:
“In 1933 when the Nazis came to power in Germany, the [Marxist] Institute for Social Research fled, they fled to New York City, where it was reestablished that same year with help of the President of Columbia University. Once in America, the Frankfurt School gradually shifted the focus of its work from destroying German society and culture, to attacking the society and culture of its new place of refuge.”
Communism is evil, no doubt; but there is a sinister agenda hidden in a lot of anti-Marxist work, and that is to get us to sympathize with Nazism. The Left-Right dichotomy is the struggle between Marxist or International Socialism and National Socialism or Nazism. There is no criticism of Nazism in the documentary, only a remark about how the Nazis resisted Marxism and how the Marxists were trying to destroy “German society and culture,” as if the environment in which Nazism thrived was anything special or somehow superior to Marxism. In the anti-Islam movement, or the Counterjihad, major activists are using the threat of Islam to promote homosexuality and eugenics.
They will say, “Islam hates gays, therefore you should embrace homosexuality.” They will say, “Muslims are genetically inferior because they tend to be from non-White countries where people inherit low IQs.” All of these strategies have been very effective in spreading Darwinism and degeneracy, and the strategy of exposing the evils of Marxism to make Nazism look as if its not as bad is part of this agenda of pointing to an evil to justify another evil.
Before the Counterjihad movement was even established in 2007, Robert Spencer was working for Paul Weyrich, the founder of the Heritage Foundation who hired and conspired with the Hungarian Nazi, Laszlo Pasztor, a leader of the Arrow Cross, the Hungarian branch of the German Nazi Party, who worked directly with the Nazis during the Second World War. He worked as a wartime Hungarian diplomat to Berlin, capital of the Third Reich. After the Second World War, Pasztor spent two years in prison for working with the Nazis.
Pasztor would go to the United States where he would work with the highest levels of government and Right-wing political activism, and that includes activity with Robert Spencer’s mentor, Paul Weyrich.
In 1969, President Nixon permitted Pasztor to create an ethnic Central and Eastern European arm of the Republican Party. Pasztor, with the green light of America, brought in Central and Eastern European Nazis, some of whom were officials of Third Reich puppet governments, and even people said to have been war criminals during WW2. Pasztor moved some of these Nazis into the American Security Council’s Coalition for Peace Through Strength, a government think tank that was extremely influential on the Reagan Administration.
The reason as to why the US was supporting the work of the Nazi Pasztor, was the same reason the US has been supporting Islamic terrorists: it was using them to combat the Soviet Union in Europe. While Pasztor was working for Weyrich, his official title was National President of the Liberation Support Alliance which “seeks to liberate peoples in Central and European nations.” Lets not forget that it was Reagan who said, “Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” before the fall of the Berlin Wall, which indicated the collapse of the Soviet Union in East Germany and the reunification of the German nation.
So it is of no surprise that the Reagan administration was working with a Nazi, since it was the National Socialists of Germany who wanted to destroy the International Socialism of the Soviet Union. The difference between the Right-wing and the Left-wing is but one detail: the Right wants National Socialism, that is, socialism for a particular race; the Left wants International Socialism, that is, socialism for all peoples. The International Socialist says, “the rich have screwed me over.”
The National Socialist says, “The elites have brought in immigrants and foreigners, and for this they have screwed me over.” Either way, they are both the same, and they are both losers. This is the distinction that divides them; everything else, is the same. This is why people like John Tanton and Richard Mellon Scaife will back up eugenist genocide camps like those of Planned Parenthood — an organization loved by the Left — and at the same time they will work with people like Weyrich and his ilk. Robert Spencer is of the Right-wing, but he will not mind working with Bruce Bawer, one of the major pioneers behind establishing “gay marriage” in America, and even publishes his articles on his counterjihad blog. Robert Spencer, a man who says he is Catholic, working with one of the pioneers behind the sodomite movement in the US, an enemy of Christianity and the moral order? Why would this be? Because there is no difference between Left and Right, they are both enemies of the Christian Faith.
According to one investigation, Pasztor said that Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation provided “him with office space for his work for the Weyrich-sponsored Coalitions for America, that he regularly provides written reports of his activities to Weyrich, who is president of FCF as well as national chairman of Coalitions for America. The Coalitions for America brochure uses a photograph of Pasztor to illustrate the world of the Liberation Support Alliance.” *Russ Bellant, The Coors Connection, p. 32*
I suspect that this was all part of Operation Gladio, a secret NATO plan to recruit an army of neo-Nazis and other anti-Communists in Europe to combat the Soviet Union, and it was all ran from the NATO headquarters in Brussels, through a CIA-controlled organization, the Clandestine Planning Committee. Remember that a part of Gladio was to work with Eastern European emigres from the war, and that includes Hungary.
Pasztor was a main leader of an organization called the Hungarian Freedom Fighters Federation (Magyar Szabadsagharcos Szoevetseg). In 1968, New York State representative, Frank Horton, presented before the House of Representatives a statement written by Pasztor and his fellow Hungarian Freedom Fighters. The statement was in response to the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union, Poland and Hungary. The statement demanded for the “the urgent reinvigoration of the NATO Alliance and the updating of conventional armament for the armed forces of the Alliance”. We have images of the report on the statement, which was archived by the CIA:
The Hungarian Freedom Fighters were providing recruits for a paramilitary army to be used to defend against the Soviets, which was exactly what was being done in Operation Gladio. There is a CIA document dated back to 1958 that discusses members of the Hungarian Freedom Fighters Association being recruited.
It speaks of a “General Assembly of the Hungarian Freedom Fighters Association held at Torino, Italy,” a country where Gladio Operations were quite frequent. The document says that “one Tibor Szy reported that he was instructed by General Sandor Andras (former Hungarian Air Force General) to form the nucleus of a clandestine group to operate under cover of Hungarian Freedom Fighters. This group was charged with the last of having suitable, well-trained Hungarian manpower ready and standing by outside Hungary to await future developments. Szy did not submit concrete proposals for implementing such a project but requested to be put in touch with competent U.S. and NATO officers for accomplishments of this project. No action was taken concerning Szy’s request. Szy claimed he was the only authorized spokesman for all clandestine efforts (by order of General Andras) and that all plans should be coordinated through him.”
The document goes on to say that Szy and Andras, alongside three other Hungarians — Lojas Verress, Paul Nemeth and Tibor Onczay — were aware of the mentioned situation. It also says that Szy was “of operational interest to 430th CIC [Counter Intelligence Corps].”
The same document shows that an American colonel named Morton Himmler was recruiting Hungarian Freedom Fighters Association members to help “collect information and spread anti-Soviet propaganda.” Himmler was “to organize a group to spread anti-Communist propaganda.”
There is a CIA document that was initially suppose to be secret, but has since been declassified, on the paramilitary training that the Hungarian Freedom Fighters Association members would undergo. This training included “target shooting, small arms practice”, “training in parachuting”, “communications – Morse code and radio”, amongst other things that are listed in the document, which goes on to state:
“This training is given for the purpose of instructing the members how to harass the enemy behind the lines in case of war, how to commit sabotage, dynamite plants and carry on partisan warfare.”
The CIA report also says that “All able-bodied persons, male and female, not subject to regular military services, up to the age of 60, are obliged to join the Hungarian Freedom Fighters’ Association (Magyar Szabadsagharcos Szoevetseg).”
According to another CIA document, The Hungarian Freedom Fighters Federation (Magyar Szabadsagharcos Szoevetseg) was a major paramilitary force with a membership of about 150,000 people by 1954. It merged with the Hungarian Voluntary Home Defense Federation (Magyar Onkentes Honvedelmi Szovetseg or MOHSZ), whose mission was to “give premilitary training to youths approaching draft age … to permit interested persons to gain useful military skills in such fields as gilder flying, vehicle driving, radio operation and maintenance, parachute jumping, and partisan combat training … to disseminate political propaganda among the members … to assist in civil defense organization and training through air defense schools, local courses … and appropriate publications.”
All of these operations are exactly what Operation Gladio was about, and Pasztor was a part of it. Pasztor’s operations with the US government, the Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation, the fact that these organizations would be instrumental in the birth of the Counterjihad, and the fact that a major eugenist, Richard Mellon Scaife, donated tremendous money into these think-tank, really reveals a greater political and eugenist conspiracy behind the Counterjihad.
Spencer still expresses his favor for the Free Congress Foundation, and on his website it says that he is “an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation.” There is a CIA report that shows that the eugenist Scaife donated money to both the Heritage Foundation and Paul Weyrich’s Free Congress Foundation, which Spencer has worked for and still reveres:
Pasztor spoke at a forum co-sponsored by Weyrich’s Heritage Foundation and the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, or ABN. The ABN was founded in 1943, as a body of Nazi paramilitary groups from the Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States, Bulgaria, and Hungary, and they were all fighting for Hitler in the eastern front. According to the ABN, Pasztor spoke as a representative of the “Hungarian organization.” And Weyrich himself would actually travel to Hungary on behalf of his Free Congress Foundation to speak with political organizers. *See Bellant, Coors Connection, pp. 32-34*
A founder of the ABN who worked directly with Pasztor was Ivan Dochev, a Bulgarian Nazi who according to a CIA document served as “Chief of pro-Nazi Legion Brannik in Bulgaria.”
Dochev ran an organization called the “Legionaries” which was, according to the same CIA document, “a Nazi organization”. Later Dochev founded the “Anti-Bolshevistic Union”, and as we find in the CIA record, he was “in contact with American intelligence agencies following the end of hostilities in 1945,” and although there would eventually be a spat between the CIA and Dochev, the fact remains that these activities and networkings were taking place, Dochev was working with the Heritage Foundation, and his actions are in accordance to Operation Gladio.
Ivan Dochev was in fact commissioned by the West German Intelligence Service (WGIS) to recruit people to work for them in gathering intelligence against the Soviets. At first Dochev was very hesitant about working with the West Germans, but eventually agreed to meet with George Kostoff and two other German agents in Munich. They promised Dochev that the WGIS would pay him a heavy salary and that they would finance for him a nice big office which they could use as a base. Ivan Dochev recruited Bulgarians as well as Germans and even Americans for the WGIS. Here are some photo shots of the CIA document that shows the names of the recruits and some of the actions taken by both Dochev and the WGIS (I highlighted certain parts that are noteworthy):
As you can see in these two pages of the document, there were a number of Americans and Germans recruited into the WGIS through Dochev:
What is interesting is that Ivan Dochev’s organization, the Bulgarian National Front, was under the umbrella organization, the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations (ABN), which both Pasztor and Paul Weyrich collaborated with. Under this very same umbrella was the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), which is a direct partner with Right Sector, probably the biggest network of neo-Nazis in Eastern Europe. Right Sector actually reveres OUN and sees it as having the same cause as themselves. On the official website of Right Sector, it reads:
“The Right Sector, as followers of the OUN struggle, seeks to restore the Ukrainian State in a high way, which has yielded its results in the times of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ukrainians must remember the OUN and its leaders as fighters for the will of Ukraine and its nation.”
In the 90s Dochev would join the Right-wing Union of Democratic Forces, which but he had a problem: a young and new generation of Right-wingers were taking over the organization, and pushing the older figures like Dochev aside. According to one Bulgarian paper:
“It [Bulgarian National Front, Dochev’s party] had to join the Union of the Democratic Forces by following the appeal of the common anti-communist ideology and the advice of the international political experts. However, the handful of rather old activists of the Legions like Ivan Dochev was fully marginalized in the Union by the numerous young, dynamic and quite ambitious representatives of the emerging political counter-elite. They were pressed by the local and international circumstances to avoid nationalism and to choose the profile of liberals and cosmopolitans.
Amongst this newer generation of Right-wing activists was Volen Siderov, the neo-Nazi who is now the leader of the nationalist political party, Ataka. In the 90s Siderov was the editor-in-chief of the publication, Democracy, and he played a major role in getting it to become the official newspaper for the Union of Democratic Forces. What makes this network even more interesting is that the right hand man of Siderov was Pavel Chernev, who was also very active in working with Stop the Islamization of Europe (SIOE), an organization founded by Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and their Danish Nazi partner, Anders Gravers. We wrote a very in depth article on SIOE, and in it we substantiated its Nazi roots and associations. Chernev was one of the heads of SIOE before he died of a heart attack in 2015.
Here is a photo of Geller’s terrorist gang linking the full circle: Pavel Chernev (middle) alongside other SIOE leaders, Jivko Ivanov and Bratislav Živkovic, proudly holding up Geller’s SIOE poster, and notice on the side Geller’s partner, Anders Gravers praising them:
The NED is a subversive organization that funds pernicious political activist groups to conduct activities against whatever governments America does not like. In a 2014 report, the NED states that it gave $3,381,824 to various anti-Russian and pro-EU groups in the Ukraine, in order to promote animosity towards the Russian government. The NED has also flooded money into the anti-Chinese Islamic Uyghur organizations in China. In a 2014 record, the NED reported that they gave $295,000 to the Uyghur American Association, and another $275,000 to the World Uyghur Congress.
If these activists are being funded to stir things up in Eastern Europe and China, then I suspect the same type of government backing is being done for the Counterjihad movement, given the fact that the Counterjihad as a collective movement was commenced in the EU Parliament in the Counterjihad Brussels Summit, which was organized by the EU parliamentarian and neo-Nazi, Filip DeWinter.
Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Baron Bodissey, the Norwegian eugenist Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen (commonly known as Fjordman), and numerous others, were present in the Counterjihad Brussels Summit in the EU parliament. The Counterjihad was founded by the EU as, I believe, a vehicle to teach eugenist ideology. The EU helped create the Counterjihad, and the EU helped to create the migrant crises which has been the main energizer for nationalism in Europe.
When Pasztor was working with the NED, he was helping them connect with anti-Russian groups in Hungary. Pasztor acted as both translator for and intermediary between the NED and various Hungarian and Czechoslovakian groups. He even helped these groups gain funds from the NED’s International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute; he also helped them gain funds from the German Marshal Fund, a major American think thank that promotes German militarism and encourages German military expansion.
The German Marshal Fund is a very interesting organization, in that it is involved in German politics, and what makes them worthy of attention is that they partake in discourse on the increase in German militarism and military expansion. The German Marshal Fund’s advocacy for German militarism, and the events that acted as a justification for the starting of the Counterjihad Summit in Brussels, I believe are correlated together. What was the event that sparked the making of the Counterjihad? 9/11.
There were numerous people involved in exposing Islam before 9/11; my father was a pioneer behind telling the West about Islam, years before the September 11th attacks. After 9/11, various counterjihad websites and groups began to spring up. Many of the people involved in this hated Christianity and even wanted, and still want, to change the whole movement into one that is antagonistic towards Christianity and in favor for homosexuality and eugenics. The year 2007 would mark a very significant point in the history of Counterjihad, in that it became an official and more collective movement. This took place in Brussels, in the EU parliament building, and it was organized the EU parliamentarian and neo-Nazi, Filip DeWinter.
My father was never invited to this meeting, even though he was the pioneer behind combating Islam before any of the people who were invited. The reason for this, I believe, is because the designers of the Counterjihad did not want the movement to be Christian, but atheist or pagan, pro-homosexual and nationalist. My father, being a person who would have taught against Islam for the purpose of defending and advancing the Christian cause, was seen as more of a threat to the movement. The Counterjihad movement was established as a vehicle to promote nationalism, degeneracy and eugenics (the perfect formula for Nazism), under the guise of “fighting terrorism.” It was designed to appear as a response to the rise in Islamic terrorism. The Counterjihad movement had its significant boost in popularity when the immigration crises in Europe erupted in 2014, and I don’t believe that this happened by chance, but by design.
Now lets compare it to the agenda of the German Marshall Fund. Its a think tank ran by big time pro-German elites, and it is now promoting German militarism and expansionism. What is the reason it gives for this? The refugee crises. Just this year, the German Marshall Fund produced a report, written by Harold James, entitled, Can Germany Make Globalization?
The paper is about why Germany should increase its military capacity, because, as it says, with a stronger military it could enter North Africa in order to block the refugee routes. In one part of the plan, it says that Germany must adapt to American and British military innovation and buildup, if it is to be a dominate force for globalization:
“In general, defense spillovers created a powerful motor for economic growth. So historically low European defense expenditure may have been an economic drag, rather than a cause of greater European prosperity. The discomfort of high ranking academic and research institutions in the United States and the U.K. in the aftermath of the Trump election and the Brexit vote, and their implications for immigration policy, offer the EU a chance to establish Europe as a global eader. … Military security, cyber security, energy security: these are areas where Europe should take an example from the great era of American success in the late 20th century. They all require coordination, and private-public partnerships.”
In another part it reads: “The more Europe is aware of its insecurity, the greater the chance is that it takes up the challenge.” What is the greatest drive for militarism? A threat. The migration crises brought in terrorism, a terror threat that the German government was well aware of, and allowed it to happen. The threat of terrorism creates the incentive to increase government power, military spending, and arms manufacturing. Terrorism makes politicians into saviors, and the crime of genocide into an act of gleeful justice.
The German Marshall Fund is pointing out that because Europe is “aware of its insecurity,” now it has “the greater chance”, or the incentive, to boost up its military, and to conduct actions that have not been done since the Third Reich.
For example, in 2016 NBC published an article that was headlined with the words: “Germany Debates Putting Troops on Streets to Protect Against ISIS”. Think about this: German soldiers have not been on street patrols in Germany since the fall of the Third Reich. But, now it wants to put soldiers on the streets, to protect itself against, when every government including the Vatican knew that ISIS terrorists were going to be amongst the migrants?
The Germans brought in a problem, knowing full well the consequences. What was the reason? It had nothing to do with compassion, and it had everything to do with an agenda. It is obvious what that agenda is: changing the political climate to favor the strength of the State. One Australian report says: “Germany is to deploy troops on the streets for the first time since the Second World War”. Troops will be on the streets, and few will be complaining, because terrorism desensitizes us to government agendas. Just look at 9/11, and how it stirred the nationalist emotions to believe all the lies spewed out by the US government to justify the destabilization of Iraq.
The German Marshall Fund in fact admits that mass migration will alter the political climate of a nation. On its official website it says:
“Migration is a hotly debated topic on both sides of the Atlantic and impacts elections, policymaking and public opinion on the local, national and European level.”
The statement shows that a major American think tank, one which has ties to the CIA plan to destabilize Syria, knows full well the geopolitical changes that mass migration brings. That the German Marshall Fund understands that a migration crises can be made to justify military expansionism, is shown in its 2017 report where it reads:
“Germany — again in partnership with EU members — needs to secure a stable development of North Africa and the Middle East, but also of countries beyond that immediate region whose weak economic and demographic profile means that they are the source of uncontrolled migration flows.”
The Germans have been wanting to seize North Africa since Medieval times, and it looks like they will be using the migrant crises to yet again start a military advancement on that region.
The German government allowed the migration crises, knowing it was going to cause anger and fear in its own society, and now it wants to expand militarily in North Africa in the name of stopping migration. German military expansion will not anger the general populace of Germany because it will be seen as a means of protecting the German nation.
The current American administration is actually helping the cause of German militarism, although under the guise of pressuring Germany for the benefit of American interests. When Donald Trump says that Germany needs to pay its fair share in defense, the Germans are actually happy about this because it supplies the pretext to boost military spending. With America appearing to want Europeans to be their own defenders, this only sends the message to Germany to further empower itself over the continent, since Germany is the most powerful nation in Europe, and an isolated Europe means a domineering Germany. In fact, in the 2017 report from the German Marshall Fund, it reads:
“A complaint of Trump’s — articulated many times by U.S. policymakers going back as far as the 1960s — is that Europe has been free-riding on the U.S. security umbrella, and not spending enough on defense. The demand for more European defense coordination is legitimate.”
While some German politicians act angry about Trump’s push for Germany to spend more on defense, the reality is that behind closed doors, the Germans are taking advantage of this situation to not just increase its arms manufacturing and production of military technology, but to as well integrate the militaries of other European countries into its own military force. The German military will be integrating a unit of the Romanian military and an elite unit from the Czech military, and it has already integrated a Dutch unit and has agreed to take in another Dutch unit. According to one report published by Foreign Policy:
“Romania’s 81st Mechanized Brigade will join the Bundeswehr’s Rapid Response Forces Division, while the Czech 4th Rapid Deployment Brigade, which has served in Afghanistan and Kosovo and is considered the Czech Army’s spearhead force, will become part of the Germans’ 10th Armored Division. In doing so, they’ll follow in the footsteps of two Dutch brigades, one of which has already joined the Bundeswehr’s Rapid Response Forces Division and another that has been integrated into the Bundeswehr’s 1st Armored Division.”
Germany is already forming its army of auxiliary troops. Germany commenced its road back to militarism in the 90s, when it created the neo-Nazi Albanian Muslim terrorist organization, the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army), to kill Serbs and spark destabilization in Kosovo so that it could cause war in the Balkans. And this actually does tie in with the Counterjihad.
The wars, in which Serbs fought Croats, Albanians and Bosnians, broke down and fragmented Yugoslavia, the nation that consisted of the provinces of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Albania. The Germans, by arming the KLA, and recognizing Albania and Croatia as independent nations, helped in fragmenting Yugoslavia. It did this because Yugoslavia was a major ally to Russia. Croatia and Albania are pro-German, and so by isolating them as independent nations, it weakened Russian influence in the Balkans where the biggest ally to Russia is Serbia. The forces behind the Counterjihad were all in favor for the fragmentation of Yugoslavia and the killing of Serbs by NATO.
The Center for Security Policy fully supported the the breaking down of Yugoslavia. In 1990, Frank Gaffney wrote an article expressing his backing of the fragmentation of Yugoslavia, and his anger that the United States and the UN were resisting Germany’s efforts to support Croatia and Slovenia in their seceding from Yugoslavia, which was all part of a plan to strike back at Russian influence. Gaffney lamented:
“Immense international pressure has been brought to bear on Germany in recent days aimed at persuading Bonn to foreswear its plan to recognize Croatia and Slovenia by Christmas. In an ideal world, Germany should not do so alone; instead, it should be joined by every other civilized nation. In this less than ideal world, if the United States and others continue to decline to extend such recognition, Germany should not hesitate to press ahead.”
Germany, the nation that amplified to the highest level the genocidal system of eugenics, is now described as a “civilized nation” by Gaffney. During the Second World War, the Nazis dismembered Croatia from Yugoslavia, and the Germans wanted to do the same thing in the 90s, and they succeeded in getting what they wanted. And now all of a sudden Germany has good motives, according to Frank Gaffney? Actually, Gaffney knew that the Germans had nefarious motives behind pushing from secession, writing:
“While Germany is probably largely inclined to do so for the wrong reasons (i.e., out of an ambition to exercise economic and political influence in Central Europe), helping to legitimize the independence of these two democratic and free-market-oriented states is nonetheless the right thing to do.”
In other words, Gaffney understood the dangerous consequences of allying with Germany in their hegemonic ambitions, but he wanted the US to do anyway. It just like the US training Nazis or the Mujahideen: it is obvious that doing so will have very destructive consequences, that it will lead to the formation of imperialist governments, to eugenics and genocide, but they do it anyway, all in a power play against Russia. And this has nothing to do with Communism, because the US supported the Japanese against Russia when it was under the Czar, and he was a Christian monarch who hated Communism.
By supporting Croatia to secede from Yugoslavia, it enabled the pro-Nazi forces to advance and thrive in that nation. Look at Croatia now: pro-Nazi agents, or people who admire and subscribe to the ideology of the Ustaše, are now controlling much of the government in Croatia today. The Ustaše were a Croatian ethon-nationalist cult that worked with the Nazis, and together they exterminated about one million Serbs during the the Holocaust. Now Croatia is seeing an intense return back to this sort of violent ideology.
The culture minister in the Croatian government is Zlatko Hasanbegovic, a Muslim who wants to emulate the Ustaše and revive Nazism in his country. According to one report, Hasanbegovic cut “funds for progressive groups and independent media and endorsing a revisionist documentary film that denies the scale of the crimes committed by Croatia during its alliance with Nazi Germany in the 1940s.” Hasanbegovic even praised the Ustasi as “heroes” and “martyrs”.
The mainstream party in Croatia is the Croatian Democratic Union, or HDZ, founded by Croatia’s first president, Franjo Tudman (who died in 1999). It is currently the largest party in the Croatian parliament (or the Sabor), holding 56 seats, an imposing majority upon the smaller leftist parties. HDZ exhibited some moderation, but in the early 2000s there was a shift to Nazi sympathy and ideology. HDZ began to absorb the smaller Far-Right parties, including the pro-Ustase Nazi party, the Croatian Pure Party of Rights, which was the party that Hasanbegovic belonged to before joining HDZ. The party is able to amass huge numbers for rallies, such as the one that took place in January of last year in which five thousand people gathered together, some of whom chanting “For the Homeland Ready,” the Ustashe version of the Nazis’ Sieg Heil.
Thanks to people like Frank Gaffney, Croatia — now independent — has been working with the CIA and Saudi Arabia to fuel the civil war in Syria. In 2012, when the Syrian War first began, Croatia was one of the biggest providers of arms and ammunition to Islamic jihadists fighting against the Assad regime. According to a 2013 investigation by the New York Times, Croatia sent weapons and ammo through Jordan, with CIA logistical support and Saudi Arabia financing. According to the United Nations, Croatia sent $36 million worth of ammo to Syria through Jordan in the first two years since 2012. Since 2012, Croatia and Saudi Arabia have sent $21 million in weapons, including rocket and grenade launchers, to Syria. Before 2012, such arms trading was non-existent from Croatia.
All of this is because Croatia was dismembered from Yugoslavia and thereby left as a tool of NATO powers, and this fragmentation of the Balkans occurred on account of political measures supported by Frank Gaffney and those like him. Croatia, a German ally, worked with the CIA to arm jihadists to destroy Syria and slaughter hundreds of thousands, all for the cause of neutralizing Russia’s influence in the Middle East — all of this sounds like an operation akin to Gladio. People like Gaffney support terrorists, and when terrorism becomes a headline, they form a “counterjihad movement” which is a vehicle to promulgate eugenics, homosexuality and ethno-nationalism.
In 1999, the Center for Security Policy — a Right-wing think-tank founded by Frank Gaffney which financed the 2007 Counterjihad Summit in Brussels — published an article that expressed bitter anger that the US government was not dropping enough bombs on Serbs to defend the Albanians, and that it was not demanding that the Serbs comply completely with NATO’s terms:
“Slice by slice, the Clinton capitulation is underway. No longer does the president demand unconditional compliance with NATO’s terms, as he did when this fight began. Instead he says, ‘There’s plenty to talk about.’ No longer does he vow to bomb Serbia until Slobodan Milosevic surrenders. Instead he is open to bombing pauses and to negotiations with Serbia’s hard-line ally, Russia. No longer does he declare that a ”NATO force” or even a ”NATO-led force” police the peace in Kosovo. Instead he throws the door open to a UN force so broad as to comprise even pro-Serb, anti-Albanian Russians and Ukrainians.
Soon it will all be over but the arranging of the fig leaves. And on every important principle, NATO and the United States will have lost.”
In April of 2017, I wrote an in depth piece on how Germany was instrumental behind the NATO bombing of Kosovo, and how it pushed the Americans to commence the strike, and how the Germans created the Nazi Albanian KLA. The Germans did this because they wanted to establish their hegemony in the Balkans, and really continue from where they left off in the Second World War. The Germans wanted to control the Balkans in both WW1 and WW2, and in both of these wars they armed Muslims to kill Serbs. In the 90s, wanting to end its pacifism, Germany helped commence the bloody conflict in Kosovo, doing the same thing it did in the World Wars: arming the Albanians to kill Serbs. NATO’s war in Kosovo was essentially Germany’s war to advance its own power and return to militarism. The Right-wing think-tanks like Center for Security, then, were in reality promoting the cause of German military advancement and German militarist ideology that seeks for the establishment of Germanic domination.
Frank Gaffney, one of the godfathers of the Counterjihad, is all for German militarism. In 1990 he wrote an article stating that that the reunification of Germany would bring a stronger German military to combat the Soviets:
“The prospect of a future, real reduction in the conventional military threat facing Western Europe. This will be of considerable strategic significance provided the dismantling of the East German army and integration of 50,000 of its officers (roughly half of the total) and enlisted personnel into the Bundeswer do not wind up greatly reducing the integrity and reliability of those German forces assigned to NATO.”
In 1984, the CIA produced a document in favor for allowing Germany to remilitarize itself and acquire long-range offensive missile systems. The document is entitled, Soviet Views on the “European Defense” Movement, and it was distributed to Frank Gaffney. The document reveals a number of things: firstly, that going as far back as the 80s, the Germans wanted to return to militarism and create a European Union army; secondly, it shows that the CIA and their partner Frank Gaffney, one of the key designers of the Counterjihad, were behind Germany going back to militarism. The document also shows how the Russians were combating this revival of German militarism. The document, in regards to a German-French cooperation at lifting restrictions upon German rearmament, reads:
“West German leaders in particular, while insisting that nothing should be done to undermine Nato solidarity, have made it known that they believe the time is right for closer Western European political and security cooperation. This sentiment within Western Europe has led to some revitalization of the WEU [Western European Union], the seven-member organization formed in 1954 to provide a framework for and to monitor postwar restrictions on West German rearmament. Although the WEU has served mostly as a forum for political consultation, its members, led by France, have tried in recent years to make it into an effective mechanism for coordinating their foreign and defense policies. The French have agreed to Bonn’s request to lift remaining WEU restrictions on West German conventional armaments production in exchange for West Germany’s support for revitalizing the organization. In conjunction with these moves, Paris and Bonn have also stepped up bilateral defense cooperation, most noticeably in the area of joint armament production. At the annual Franco-German summit last May the two countries reached final agreement on joint production of an antitank helicopter and discussed joint development of a military photoreconnaissance satellite.”
The CIA document actually makes mention of Russia’s warning against German remilitarization. It reads that the Soviets affirmed that permitting West Germany to rearm would “pose a ‘threat to the security not only of its neighbors, but also of distant states’ and warned Bonn that ‘negative consequences’ would inevitably arise if it produces its own long-range offensive weapons.”
The document mocks the Soviet’s warning that this remilitarization is due to West Germany’s “self-interested militarist ambitions.”
The document reveals that the Soviet general, Nikolay Chervov, told a a delegation from the German Social Democratic Party that NATO’s decision to allow a West German general to be in charge over nuclear planning signified that the Germans wanted to get nuclear weapons:
Frank Gaffney signed his name on this document, showing his support for German militarism:
Gaffney was working with the CIA in their efforts to revive German militarism all in the name of combating the Soviets. This action is similar to that of the CIA plan of Operation Gladio, in which American and European secret services trained and armed neo-Nazis and Right-wing terrorists to form a secret paramilitary army to fight the Soviets. We can say that Gaffney was involved in the US government’s measures to combat the Soviets. He supported the arming of Muslim fighters against the Soviets, and he supported the remilitarizing of Germany to go against the Soviets. Moreover, Gaffney worked with the CIA partnered eugenist, Richard Mellon Scaife, to form the Center for Security Policy. Gaffney’s Center financed the 2007 Counterjihad Summit, and this fact really reveals the link between the CIA and the Counterjihad. On top of this, Robert Spencer worked with Paul Weyrich, the founder of the Heritage Foundation — another think-tank financially established by the eugenist, Richard Mellon Sciafe — who directly worked with the Nazi, Laszlo Pasztor, and collaborated with neo-Nazi groups in Eastern Europe. All of this sounds like Gladio, or at least something like Gladio.
The organizer of the 2007 Counterjihad Summit in Brussels, the EU politician and neo-Nazi Filip DeWinter, also was in favor for fragmenting Yugoslavia, and showed this when he bragged about going to Croatia five times to provide support for their forces against the Serbs:
All of this sounds like something very akin to the CIA’s Gladio operation. Baron Boddissy, a key figure in the Counterjihad who was invited to the 2007 Brussels Summit, praised the Danish NATO tank commander, Lt. Col. Lars Moller, for killing Serbs in battle, and mocked the UN for letting him:
“Don’t you just love the UN? If you shoot back at the enemy, you’re ‘overreacting.’ Things haven’t changed much in the last twelve years. … The trouble had begun when the UN representative allowed the Serbs to move tanks into the area from which they had previously been banned. … No wonder Lt. Col. Moller had to be sent home — the last thing the UN wants is somebody displaying a tough stance. …. It’s obvious that the Nordic Battalion deserved the criticism. An aggressive response defeats the purpose of the UN and goes against its mission statement. When your imperative is to have peace at any price, the aggressor holds the trump card, and must be appeased, rather than defeated.”
In the Counterjihad movement there is an obsession with Northern Europe. I’ve been noticing this for years. Its obsessed with the Nordic races, and the Nordic religions. Boddissy wrote an article entitled, “The Men of the North,” in which he says:
“In trying to define Western Civilization, I have often asked the question, ‘Who are we?’ This is part of the answer. When we Americans look at Denmark — and the response of the Danes to the aggressive provocation of the Mohammed Cartoon Crisis — we are looking in a mirror. We would be well-advised to emulate our Viking cousins when our own turn comes.”
THE COUNTERJIHAD AND ITS EUGENIST FATHER, RICHARD MELLON SCAIFE
In 2008, Robert Spencer wrote a praise for Weyrich after his death, describing him as “the great conservative leader, one of the founders of the Heritage Foundation and CEO and Chairman of the Free Congress Foundation”, and he also recounted that “In 2002 he named me an Adjunct Fellow of the Free Congress Foundation and asked me to write a series of monographs on Islam”.
The Heritage Foundation, while it is probably the most politically influential Right-wing organization in the US, and is praised as a beacon of conservative and family values, is a eugenist organization. When the Heritage Foundation was founded by Paul Weyrich, its biggest funder was the American industrialist billionaire, Richard Mellon Scaife, one of the biggest eugenists in American history. Scaife was the financial founder of major Right-wing think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Center for Security Policy which organized the 2007 Counterjihad Summit in Brussels, the meeting that would commence the Counterjihad as a significant international movement.
Scaife also served as the vice-chairman for the Heritage Foundation. Scaife, while supporting the Heritage Foundation, donated millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion organizations. What this proves is that a eugenist Nazi was the financier behind these think-tanks, and by this, behind the institutions that would direct the formation of the Counterjihad.
In 2011, Scaife wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal entitled: “Why Conservatives Should Oppose Efforts To Defund Planned Parenthood”, in which he recounts how he met Margaret Sanger, a major eugenist and anti-Catholic who founded Planned Parenthood to slaughter Blacks, Italians and other non-Anglo races through abortion. Scaife wrote:
“I met Sanger several times before her death in 1966 and was impressed by her intellect and her commitment to many issues, not the least of which was enabling every woman to be ‘the absolute mistress of her own body,’ as she put it.”
He also wrote, “I admired her fearless, relentless readiness to stand up for what she believed, despite decades of angry, mean-spirited, often hypocritical attacks on her ideas and her character. So I am aggravated by the continuing attacks on Sanger and her primary legacy, the Planned Parenthood network that still serves to many Americans today. … If not for Margaret Sanger’s vision and bravery, many poor Americans would have no place to turn for birth-control measures and counseling or for other health-care services.”
Scaife is a major donor to Project Prevention, an American organization that pays drug addicts to get sterilized. According to a 2010 report, which reveals that Scaife is a major donor to this eugenist organization, 3,500 Americans agreed to be sterilized in exchange for money. Such actions are not done to truly fight drug addiction: its to desensitize us to the idea of sterilization.
In the early to mid 1900s, it was very common in the West for people with mental problems or physical deformities to be sterilized, and most people do not care. But, because of the Holocaust and Nazi atrocities, such ideas have been considered taboo. So, the eugenists are trying to condition people to think nonchalantly about sterilization. Right when we become lethargic about these things with the idea of, “Hey, they got paid,” then at that point we have been pushed into another step towards full indifferentism to the eugenist policies of the past. How does eugenics always begin? It always begins with people no one cares about.
In the 1970s, while Scaife was funding Planned Parenthood, he was also working directly with the CIA as he was funding for their interests. While being encouraged by the CIA, Scaife was giving $100,000 a year to the Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC), and to its leader, Brian Crozier. The ISC was created in 1970 to supposedly combat communism in the US. Crozier was a member of the Pinay circle, a group of European elites consisting of intelligence agents, military veterans and a network of wealthy funders. *See Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11, ch. 6, p. 98*
Cordelia Scaife May, Richard Mellon Scaife’s sister, inherited her brother’s fortunes and continued funding the eugenist cause. In between 1983 and 1989, Cordelia donated $5,800,000 to Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) *Juan F. Perea, Immigrants Out!, p.123* a major eugenist organization founded and ran by the anti-immigration Darwinist John Tanton, who is also a big supporter of Planned Parenthood and even founded a Planned Parenthood chapter.
In 1997, Tanton told the press that “the United States should make greater efforts to encourage population control.” And in the same year, FAIR conducted an event to celebrate the work of Protestant minister Thomas Malthus, the one who popularized the idea that certain people must be killed off to maintain the population and preserve resources for “the fit,”; Malthus would be also be one of the biggest inspirations to Charles Darwin to preach his ideology of evolutionism and natural selection.
Garrett Hardin, who was one of the most prominent members of FAIR, saw no issue in the slaughter of children to depopulate the world. Hardin lamented about “the next generation of breeders” having children “in Third World countries.” He once said: “It would be better to encourage the breeding of more intelligent people rather than the less intelligent.” Hardin was down right genocidal, saying: “A fetus is of so little value, there’s no point in worrying about it.”
Dan Stein, the executive director of FAIR, hated Mexicans and held contempt for their Catholic faith. He once said: “Certainly we would encourage people in other countries to have small families. Otherwise they’ll all be coming here, because there’s no room at the Vatican.” To Stein, getting rid of the immigration of non—Northern Europeans was about an ideology of Anglo-Saxon supremacy. He described the Immigration Act of 1965 as “a great way to retaliate against Anglo-Saxon dominance and hubris.”
And isn’t it both telling and revealing that this eugenist, Richard M. Scaife, financed the creation of the think-thank that funded the 2007 Counterjihad Summit in Brussels: the Center for Security Policy, ran by Frank Gaffney. In 2014, Gaffney wrote an article praising the eugenist Scaife as a great patriot and as a “founding father” of the Center for Security Policy:
“On July 4, 1826, two of America’s founding fathers – former Presidents Thomas Jefferson and John Adams – passed away. Their myriad contributions to the character and direction of this country have long survived them. The same will surely be true of a man who passed away this Fourth of July, a founding father in his own right: Richard M. Scaife. Few have done more than Dick Scaife to give life to and build the modern American conservative movement which has, in turn, played an outsized role in shaping our nation over the past fifty years.”
Gaffney then praised Scaife as the financier of major Right-wing think-tanks, the Heritage Foundation, the America Enterprise Institute, and his own Center for Security Policy, affirming that if it were not for the funds of Scaife, these political organizations would not have existed:
“What most distinguished Richard Scaife’s philanthropy was the extraordinary role it played in incubating and sustaining institutions that have enabled generations of conservatives to play prominent roles in the Battle of Ideas. In his memoir, A Richly Conservative Life, Mr. Scaife wrote: ‘It might be too much praise, but it doesn’t bother me at all to be thought the ‘father’ of right-wing think-tanks – that is, conservatively oriented policy research organizations.’
Those policy research organizations – including the Heritage Foundation, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the American Enterprise Institute, and my own Center for Security Policy – would almost certainly not have come into being, let alone made the sort of contribution they have to public policy, had it not been for the visionary and sustained support of Scaife-sponsored foundations.”
The Heritage Foundation, the Center for Security Policy and the American Enterprise Institute, all of these organizations were founded by a eugenist nazi, and this reality should shift our awareness on what truly are the motives of these “think-tanks.” It should also bring us to the realization that it was a eugenist who ultimately gave birth to the organizations that would officiate the Counterjihad movement. Now, groups like the Center for Security Policy are “anti-Islam,” but decades ago they were all for arming the jihadists. Now that the jihadists have gained attention because of the very terrorism caused by policies people like Gaffney supported, now they are against Islam, and under the cover of nationalism, they have been expressing their backing for the Nazis of our time.
THE CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY
When the Counterjihad movement was commenced in the 2007 Brussels Conference, it was done by two entities: the EU agent and neo-Nazi Filip De Winter, and the Center for Security Policy ran by Frank Gaffney. According to Baron Bodissey, the Counterjihad Summit in Brussels “was sponsored by the Center for Vigilant Freedom,” which was led by Christine Brim. Brim is quite an obscure person, as much of the info on her work for the Center for Vigilant Freedom has been scrapped. At the time of the Counterjihad Summit in Brussels, she was the Chief Operating Officer for the Center for Security Policy, a major government think-tank ran by Frank Gaffney that has some very big government players involved.
In the 1990s, a new branch of the Center for Security Policy called the William J. Casey Institute, was established. In an article on the institute, Frank Gaffney writes that it “was formally launched on 13 March 1996 with the mission of exploring the nexus between international financial, energy, trade and technology flows and traditional U.S. national security policy concerns.”
Gaffney goes on to write that the “national stature” of the William Casey Institute “has been achieved in no small measure thanks to the Institute’s former Chairman, Hon. Roger W. Robinson, Jr.” Gaffney further recounts that Robinson was “Senior Director of International Economic Affairs at the National Security Council, where he worked closely with Bill Casey in formulating the policies that helped destroy the Soviet Union.” Gaffney then writes about how, “Prior to his government service, Mr. Robinson was a Vice President in the International Department of the Chase Manhattan Bank with responsibility for the Bank’s loan portfolios in the former Soviet Union, Eastern and Central Europe and Yugoslavia.”
Robinson was in deep with the CIA. There are dozens of pieces of correspondence between Roger Robinson and the CIA that been opened for the public to read. The communications pertain to a range of issues, from restraining Soviet Banks in the US to Japanese commerce. In one piece of communication from 1986, the director of the CIA at the time, William J. Casey, received a note from his secretary, saying:
“Roger Robinson called, just back from two weeks
in Japan. He wanted to be sure you saw his
article in the 22 June WASHINGTON POST which
is attached, and the reaction to it from today’s
The attachment contained an article written by Robinson and published by the Washington Post, pushing for the United States to set impediments on Soviet banks in the US.
This correspondence was made in 1986, a time when Operation Gladio was still being conducted, before it was supposedly disbanded in 1990. In 1986 Roger Robinson and Norman A. Bailey wrote a letter to the Director of the CIA, William Casey, asking for support to form an organization called “Center for the Center for Economic Security” as a means to combat Soviet advancements in Western economies. In one part of the letter it says:
“We believe that in order to perpetuate this work and consolidate progress, it would be advisable to consider the establishment of a prestigious institute or center outside of government dedicated to the study of international economic security. This new field is in its infancy but already includes such crucial issues as the Soviet strategy to dominate West European gas markets, the security dimensions of the international debt crisis, and the strategy implications of East-West finance.”
The Acting Director of the CIA, Robert M. Bates, wrote a response letter back to Robinson and Bailey, stating that while the Intelligence Agency was sought “to counter Soviet subversive inroads”, the CIA could not directly fund their operations until the center was established:
“While the Director heartily endorses the ideas behind the creation of a Center for the Study of Economic Security, he feels that it would be inappropriate for Agency officials to get personally involved. As for Agency funding of your proposed Center, such financial involvement is precluded by Agency policy based on the Katzenbach Commission Report. Once the Center is operational, of course, we would be pleased to discuss the possibility of funding individual research projects or papers.”
Robinson and Bailey wrote a reply affirming that they never asked for direct funds, rather, they were asking for funds through a third party, someone who could finance their operations without any obvious indications of CIA interests. In one part of the letter it says:
“We rather had in mind talking informally and unofficially with Bill about his personal idea concerning possibly private sector contacts with a potential interest in participating in the funding of such an undertaking. In addition, we wanted to extend an invitation to Bill to assume any role he might deem indicated in such an organization, should it materialize — but only after the conclusion of his distinguished government service.”
The Center for Security Policy, alongside numerous other Right-wing organizations like the Heritage Foundation, were indeed funded by a private investor — Richard Mellon Scaife — who worked directly with the CIA, which was encouraging Scaife’s funding. So, these think-tanks were financed by third party investors motivated by CIA requests. The Director of the CIA at this time, William J. Casey, worked directly with Roger Robinson to form the William J. Casey Institute branch of the Center for Security Policy.
In accordance to the initial plan discussed in the correspondence between Robinson and the CIA, the Center for Security Policy and its William J. Casey branch was to be focused on the economic advancements of the Soviet Union. Gaffney wrote in a report:
“The William J. Casey Institute of the Center for Security Policy was formally launched on 13 March 1996 with the mission of exploring the nexus between international financial, energy, trade and technology flows and traditional U.S. national security policy concerns. … In his capacity as CIA Director, in particular, Mr. Casey was at the forefront of constructing a more security-minded U.S. policy with regard to economic, financial and energy relations with potential adversaries like the former Soviet Union and China.”
Gaffney, later in the report, wrote on the collaboration between CIA Director Casey and Roger Robinson:
“Within four years of its inception the Casey Institute had become an influential voice in the public policy community. This national stature has been achieved in no small measure thanks to the Institute’s former Chairman, Hon. Roger W. Robinson, Jr. Mr. Robinson’s background was ideally suited to establishing the Institute: During the Reagan Administration he served as Senior Director of International Economic Affairs at the National Security Council, where he worked closely with Bill Casey in formulating the policies that helped destroy the Soviet Union.”
Working to destroy the Soviet Union, correspondence between the CIA and Robinson to combat the Soviets in the 80s and 90s, all of this is completely in line with the agenda of Gladio.
This further illumines the connection between the Counterjihad and CIA operations. As we can see here, there was a lot of correspondence between Gaffney’s partner, Robinson, and the CIA, specifically the CIA director William Casey. Casey was involved with Regnery, the very publishing house that publishes much Counterjihad literature. Almost all of Robert Spencer’s books are published by Regnery, a publishing house founded by Henry Regnery, a pro-Nazi who was subsidized by the CIA to produce books that would be used to battle Communism. There is a report from 1985 which was archived by the CIA, recounting how in a Wednesday evening dinner in the Mayflower Hotel in honor of Henry Regnery, there were major big-wigs present such as General William Westmoreland and CIA Director William Casey.
Henry Regnery’s nephew, William Regnery, inherited the wealth of his uncle and is now the major funder behind the National Policy Institute, which is one of the biggest promoters of eugenist Alt-Right ideology. Since Regnery was working with the CIA, more specifically the CIA director William Casey, and William Casey worked with the Center for Security Policy, and Regnery published most of Robert Spencer’s books, and William Regnery funds the Alt-Right, then there must be a network between the Counterjihad and the current day eugenist movements.
In the official bio for Robinson, it says that “Mr. Robinson was a Vice President in the International Department of the Chase Manhattan Bank. He had banking responsibilities for Chases loan portfolio in the USSR, Eastern and Central Europe and Yugoslavia for five years and served for some two and a half years as a personal assistant to former Chase Chairman David Rockefeller.”
Chase Bank was a major supporter for the Nazis during the Holocaust. Chase stole the money from accounts owned by Jews who had fled the Nazi terror. The New York Times reported:
“Among the 168 banks and other financial institutions listed as having blocked tens of thousands of accounts by Jewish depositors following Nazi orders in the occupied zone between 1940 and 1942, the commission said, were a few American ones, which have also said they would cooperate to return the money.
It listed them as Morgan & Company, now part of the J. P. Morgan & Company; the Guaranty Trust Company of New York, now also part of J. P. Morgan, and Chase Bank, now part of Chase Manhattan Bank.”
In 1998 a lawsuit was filed against Chase stating that ”the Paris branch of Chase, with full knowledge of its New York home office, collaborated with the German authorities and displayed excessive zeal in its enforcement of anti-Jewish laws,” including blocking and freezing the accounts of depositors. The Nazis were selling a special German Mark, called Rueckwanderer, to German Americans in the US. Chase Bank was extremely involved in the transactions of these Marks. By helping in the sale of these Marks, Chase Bank, alongside other US financial institutions, helped the Third Reich raise over $20 million. In turn, Chase Bank received from Germany over $1 million in commission. When Germany commenced its policy of extermination of the Jewish people in 1938, Chase Bank became even more intense in eagerness to continue its business with the Nazis, since it wanted in on the money seized from bank accounts owned by fleeing Jews. According to the National Archives in Washington:
“The Germans sold special German Marks—known as Rueckwanderer [returnee] Marks—to U.S. residents of German descent. It has also been known that Chase National Bank (later Chase Manhattan, and now J.P. Morgan Chase) was involved in these transactions. Newly declassified FBI records offer a far more detailed picture than ever before. Thanks to FBI sources within Chase National and the other businesses involved as well as documents subpoenaed for a Grand Jury investigation launched in August 1941, the Bureau was able to follow a money trail. While the scheme to build dollar exchange for Germany through the sale of Rueckwanderer Marks originated with Germany, U.S. financial institutions were clearly implicated.
They helped the Germans raise over $20 million between 1936 and 1941, and in return earned over $1.2 million in commissions. Over half a million alone went to Chase National Bank and its subagents. The financial houses understood that the German government paid the commissions through the sale of discounted, blocked Marks that came mainly from Jews who had fled Germany. In fact these financial houses, especially Chase, were most eager to increase the scope of their business after the Nazi anti-Jewish pogrom known as Kristallnacht in November 1938, when Jewish emigration from Germany reached its height.”
Going back to the bio for the Center for Security Policy’s Roger W. Robinson, it says that Robinson “served for some two and a half years as a personal assistant to former Chase Chairman David Rockefeller.” David Rockefeller was a major funder for eugenics, and like the Danish counterjihadist, Nicolai Sennels, he was a huge advocate for population control.
David Rockefeller was a big supporter for the Population Council, an organization that advocates for population control through contraception and abortion. The Population Council was founded by John D. Rockefeller III, and it was financed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The first president for the Population Council was one Frederick Henry Osborn who, according to the New York Times, “made a fortune in railroads and investment banking, retired from business at the age of 40 and turned to eugenics and demography, writing extensively on heredity, the environment and population problems.”
The same report says that “Mr. Osborn and John D. Rockefeller 3d began the Population Council to foster studies and education on the people of various nations in relation to their material and cultural resources. He was a director of the Population Association of America and the American Eugenics Society.” Osborn was amongst the earliest Americans to advocate for eugenics, as part of America’s inundation of eugenic ideology into Europe. It was in the United Stated where the first sterilization law was passed, in Indiana in 1907. From then on, sterilization laws began to be passed in other states, and by 1928 — just when Europe’s first sterilization law was passed in Switzerland — thirty American states passed their own sterilization laws.
When Germany took American eugenics and began to impose it in its fullest Darwinist way, Osborn and his ilk were in glee. Osborn said: “Germany’s rapidity of change with respect eugenics was possible only under a dictator.”
American eugenists saw in Germany’s eugenist policies what they truly wanted to carry out in the US. Osborn was disappointed that, while the US was responsible in teaching the Germans eugenics, it itself did not follow through to accomplish the Darwinist plan. Osborn said:
“a brief history of the origin and development of eugenic sterilization showed the originality of the United States, where all the first laws were initiated, and indicated a lack of thoroughness of our people in their failure to follow through.”
Osborn also remarked: “recent developments in Germany constitute perhaps the most important social experiment which has ever been tried.”
After the Second World War, when the eugenic language of calling people ‘inferior’ became more taboo, Osborn was instrumental in changing the face of the eugenist movement to make it appear more compassionate. During this ‘reformation’ from 1946 to 1956, Osborn was president of the Pioneer Fund, a secretive White supremacist group. In 1956, Osborn travelled to England to give a speech for the annual Galton Lecture at a meeting for the Eugenics Society, to tell his fellow eugenists on the manner by which to advance their social-Darwinist cause:
“They won’t accept the idea that they are, in general, second rate. We must rely on other motivations. … Lets stop telling anyone that they have a generally inferior genetic quality, for they will never agree. Let’s base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care, then perhaps our proposals will be accepted.”
When Roe V. Wade was passed in 1972, Osborn praised the legalization of abortion as part of the new face of the eugenist movement, saying:
“The name was changed because it became evident that changes of a eugenic nature would be made for reasons other than eugenics, and that tying a eugenic label on them would more often hinder than help their adoption. Birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time.”
FRANK GAFFNEY AND THE EUGENIST ORGANIZATION FAIR
What is revealing is that Frank Gaffney works directly with Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), broadcasting his radio show from their building.
FAIR is interconnected with the eugenist Population Council. On the official website for FAIR it lists one Sarah G. Epstein as one of its Board of Directors and describes her resume as:
“Ms. Epstein is an art lecturer and volunteer. She serves on the boards of several non-profit organizations, including Pathfinder International, Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, Center for Development and Population Activities and The Population Institute.”
Planned Parenthood is an organization that a lot of people would consider eugenist, while the other, Pathfinder International, is a eugenist group that is not as known. Pathfinder International was founded by Clarence Gamble, a major eugenist leader in America who was responsible for the sterilization of many people deemed as having a ‘low IQ’ in North Carolina. According to one report:
“Throughout his career, Gamble was a prominent champion of eugenic sterilization and fought for laws mandating the sterilization of mental ward patients and the performance of vasectomies on ‘unfit’ males. In this way he sought to eliminate hereditary forms of illness and retardation.”
In 1937, Gamble provided information on contraception to the native population of the very small island of Bocagrande which lies right near the Florida Everglades. The nurse who was in charge of the program, Frances Pratt, told Gamble that the island was an ideal place to experiment with different contraceptive methods, and of course she was talking about experimenting on the natives. After offering to fund for one year the birth control program, and to pay Pratt’s salary, Gamble had the entire island as a whole laboratory for himself. One form of birth control that was experimented with was to shove a sponge covered in a “contraceptive foam powder” into a woman’s vagina. *See Reed, The Birth Control Movement and American Society, p. 252*
Gamble bemoaned that North Carolina’s population increase was not coming “from the more intelligent levels” and told an audience of eugenists that they were “in a strategic position…to improve North Carolinas next generation by correcting the present undesirable differential birth rate.”
In 1936, Gamble commenced his contraception program in Puerto Rico to get the Puerto Ricans to stop having a lot of children. This operation was done under the Puerto Rico Reconstruction Administration (PRRA), a program issued from Roosevelt’s New Deal program. There was one concern about the eugenist project, and that was that by experimenting with birth control pills on Puerto Rican Catholics, Catholics in the US would get upset, thus jeopardizing Roosevelt’s campaign for reelection.
The program was temporarily halted until Roosevelt’s reelection victory was secured. Once that was done, the program was resumed. Birth control was illegal in Catholic Puerto Rico, but the United States began to pressure the Puerto Rican government, and it acquiesced to American arm-twisting. After this, Puerto Rico became an open season lab for birth control fanatics. Gamble brought his foams and powders, but then he began utilizing a different: “the pill.” Gamble financed the first experiments done for the pill in Puerto Rico; these experiments were done by Drs. Gregory Pincus and John Rock, “The Fathers of the Pill.”
Gamble worked directly with Margaret Sanger to further support her “negro project,” which was conducted to exterminate blacks through abortion. In a letter written by Sanger to Gamble, she wrote out a strategy to use black protestant pastors to convince African Americans that Planned Parenthood did not want to annihilate their people:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
FAIR’s connection with the Population Council, and Center for Security Policy’s collaborations with FAIR, establishes a continual line from the pro-Nazi eugenist movement all the way to the Counterjihad movement. Since it was the eugenist Scaife family that funded both the Center for Security Policy and John Tanton, founder of FAIR, there is an ideological relation between the two, and thus — taking also into account the many eugenist ties within the Counterjhad movement —- there is a eugenist foundation in the establishment of the Counterjihad network.
THE CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY AND JAPAN
Roger Robinson is also a huge backer of Japan. He is in complete support for Japan possessing nuclear weapons, providing Turkey with nuclear technology, and for the US to make profit from selling Japanese nuclear technology. Japan is a wolf nation; it invaded much of East Asia during the Second World War and butchered countless millions. Yet people like Robinson have no issue in pushing for the revival of Japan militarism. In a Center for Security Policy speech given in 2013, Robinson said:
“I don’t want to jump to conclusions on this, but I would say that if you’re Japan today, and you’re seeing the bellicosity and the direct threats to their nation from North Korea, and you see China again with fire control radar locks, and this is your world and you see Russia salivating over your territory and South Korea, of all places, willing to join the fray at some level at such a delicate time and press their own territorial issues with Japan, you’re in a position where you have to have leave in the US-Japan security relationship to not be thinking about nuclear reprocessing of the type that would provide you with a rather rapid capability to nuclearize should it be required.
And I think that obviously there’s a commercial element to this that they’re not backing away from nuclear energy – and we could have that conversation about the benefits of being able to sell their nuclear technology abroad – but I think this group is more interested in the other elements of this that are less public and what they may mean.”
I did a video revealing Roger Robinson’s hawkish push for Japanese militarism:
The United States wanting to militarize Japan for the purpose of profit is merely a continuation of an American foreign policy that has been going on since 1852, when the US government had Commander Matthew Perry send two giant steam powered ships to the coast of Japan to scare the Japanese into agreeing to do commerce with the Americans.
The Americans taught the Japanese about military technology, and by 1868 Japan became a unified and militarily formidable nation, in what is called the Meiji Reformation. From this time, Japan commenced a very violent and efficient plan of military expansionism, defeating China in 1895, and crushing the Russians in 1905. Japan’s victories gained the respect of the Americans who had thought that they could use the Japanese as a check against China and Russia. From this, the Japanese would continue on their warpath, until they turned on the Americans, the ones who began them and the ones who ended them.
Shinzo Abe has made it clear that he wants to revive the Meiji Era, and the American heretics are helping Japan do this. The support for a return to Japanese militarism and nationalism, is the support for eugenics. For even a brief perusal of Japan’s imperialist history shows that it was amongst the most diabolical imposers of eugenics, with its Unit 731 conducting the most horrid human experiments, and with its armies extermination millions of people, be they in China or the Catholic Philippines, who they deemed as racially inferior.
And if you think that admiration for Nazism is dead in Japan, think again. An official of Shinzo Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party, Yoshio Ogai, wrote a book entitled, Hitler’s Election Strategy, A Bible for Certain Victory in Modern Elections. The book praises Hitler for having the ability to “wipe out enemies with emergency measures”, and affirms that the Nazis’s process of “unifying public opinion in a short period of time and snatching power” provides “very important teachings.”
Eriko Yamatani, head of the National Public Safety Commission, posed a photo with Shigeo Masuki, former leader of Zaitokukai, a Japanese racist organization that wants all Koreans in Japan to be exterminated. Sanae Takaichi, the Internal Affairs Minister, and Tomomi Inada, Policy Chief of the ruling Liberal Democrats, posed in separate, undated photos with the leader of the National Socialist Japanese Workers Party, Kazunari Yamada.
The Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications for Abe’s administration, Sanae Takaichi, publicly endorsed the pro-Hitler book in a newspaper interview in which she said: “Like the author indicates in the book, the key to winning is to have a ‘strong will’”. Takaichi also posed for a photo with Kazunari Yamada, leader of the National Socialist Japanese Workers Party (NSJAP).
Roger Robinson believes in Abe’s pernicious ambition to change the Japanese Constitution to allow Japan to war against other nations, and so does Abe’s Nazi Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Taro Aso, who looks up to Hitler as a role model for the administration’s militarist goals, saying:
“Germany’s Weimar Constitution was changed into the Nazi Constitution before anyone knew. It was changed before anyone else noticed. Why don’t we learn from that method?”
This is the Japanese administration that Roger Robinson of the Center for Security Policy wants the United States to support. Robinson wants us to support these Japanese nazis. Why are these Right-wing elites supporting Japan? Because, like Theodore Roosevelt, they want to use Japan as a check against Russia. And this ties in with the agenda of the Center for Security Policy.
In 1986, Roger Robinson’s partner, Norman A. Bailey, wrote a document entitled, CIA Report on Soviet Use of Economic Relations, and it was addressed to William P. Clark, who worked directly under President Reagan. In the document it reads that the Soviets “work to weaken West European and Japanese economic ties with the United States and to develop stronger West European energy dependence on the USSR.” Its about guaranteeing that Japan remains a defender of American interests in East Asia against Russia and China. The US is supporting Japan for the same reason it is supporting Turkey: both Japan and Turkey hate the Russians and have a history of fighting Russia.
FRANK GAFFNEY AND EUGENICS
Frank Gaffney praised a modern day American nazi, Jared Taylor, and although he boasts about being “pro-Israel,” he acted as the sycophant that he is for this agent of the very eugenist beliefs under which the Jews were slaughtered. On his radio show, Frank Gaffney introduced Talyor by praising his website, American Renaissance, which is filled with the promotion of eugenics and racism. Gaffney said:
“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. I mean, 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.
Gaffney asked Taylor on whether or not Europe is “devolving once again into the kind of cataclysms that it has from time immemorial with bloodletting letting place. Is that overreaching at this point or is it perhaps a distant possibility?” In other words, Gaffney is asking if Europe will ever turn violent again, to which Taylor responds with:
“I certainly hope that that does not happen. On the other hand, if that is what it takes for Europe to survive as Europe, then I think that is better than Europe facing oblivion.”
One thing that I have learned over the years is that when people say, “I hope its not the case, but…” that whatever they say after the “but” is what they really want. These modern day eugenists want blood, and the propagandist like Gaffney have been helping and still assist in the efforts of the forces of destruction.
Frank Gaffney has worked with the eugenist organization, Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), and in fact conducted radio interviews from the official FAIR radio station. In 2015, Gaffney, from the FAIR station, interviewed Joe Guzzardi, Media Director and Senior Writing Fellow at Californians for Population Stabilization, and Robert Vandervoort, Executive Director of ProEnglish. Both of these organizations are eugenist.
If you look at ProEnglish, the founding chairman of the eugenist organization is John Tanton, a major supporter of Planned Parenthood, and according to one report, Tanton “organized the Planned Parenthood chapter in Petoskey, Michigan.” Tanton’s organization, NumbersUSA, is funded by Peter Thiel, the German Silicon Valley billionaire who is a huge eugenist and is revered by big American Right-wing media outlets from PJ Media to Frontpage Magazine to Breitbart.
The Nazi elites of our time are right in the midst of all the vulgar masses, tickling their ears as they fill up their pride with words of populism and grandeur, aspirations of a far off fantasy of human perfection, and as the mob worship and bow down before their idols dressed in prestigious attire, underneath the cold callous edifices of glamour, lies the blood of innocent human sacrifices, butchered on the altar of egoism, under the hands of a people innovating themselves to perdition.
The other organization which Gaffney promoted in the FAIR studio was Californians for Population Stabilization, which is a population control and eugenist group. The Media Director for Californians for Population Stabilization, Joe Guzzardi, who Frank Gaffney interviewed in the eugenist FAIR studio, is a writer for the social-Darwinist magazine, VDARE, and someone who is angered when children are taught too long on the Holocaust. In a 2002 article, Guzzardi expressed his anger over how a group of Hispanic American students spent three hours in a Holocaust museum and only two hours to see the Smithsonian Museums, the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument and the Vietnam Wall. Guzzardi writes:
“Two hours total for all of DC`s dozens of sites but three hours-plus for the Holocaust Museum? Remember that these young students know next to nothing about American history or civics. Naturally, the kids should be exposed to the atrocities of Nazi Germany. Of course, time spent at the museum isn`t wasted.
But the extended tour of the Holocaust Museum indirectly sends a grim message, perhaps purposely, to the kids. That message is: ‘Do you see what happens when people hate? You, as a Mexican-American, may be a victim of hate. There are people out there who don`t like you and want you to go away. Can you see where hate leads?’ This is just my analysis. But the themes that are hammered home over and over again in high school deal with the wonders of diversity and the shamefulness of racism. The Holocaust Museum visit reinforces the idea in young pliable minds that racism, taken to its extreme, leads to death.”
Now, look to this way of writing and observe the strategy he utilizes. At first he shows his rage about students going to a Holocaust museum for three hours, and then he says, “Of course, time spent at the museum isn`t wasted.” He says this to prevent people from pointing out his own elusive Nazi sympathy. If the time spent at the museum was not a waste, then why even complain? What is the issue? Why even bring this up? There is an agenda in all this, and the shadow of this agenda is illumined by these words of Guzzardi:
“The Holocaust Museum visit reinforces the idea in young pliable minds that racism, taken to its extreme, leads to death.”
These agents of Belial don’t want us to think that racism leads to genocide, and so they use a form of sophistry to try to discourage people from pointing to the Holocaust as an evidence of the evils of racism. He wants students to spend more time in the Smithsonian, where Darwinism is propagated, than in the Holocaust museum where the consequences of Darwinism are revealed. Yet, Gaffney — who boasts about being “pro-Israel” — does not mind promoting and partnering with people like Guzzardi.
Like the Danish eugenist, Nicolai Sennels, and the American eugenist, Baron Bodissey — both figures of the Counterjihad movement — Guzzardi believes that there are too many people in America, and that the cause of this increase in population is immigration. Guzzardi states: “U.S. population growth is accelerating at a rate found only in Third World countries, and immigration is its chief driver.” He then promote’s Clinton’s belief in lowering human population:
“President Clinton concluded that reducing immigration is ‘a sensitive issue,’ but nevertheless a necessary part of population stabilization. As it turned out, no one listened to President Clinton either then or since, and U.S. population continues ever upward.”
In April of 2017, Guzzardi wrote an article dedicated to “Earth day,” which is merely a pagan day for Gaia worship, and stated that there are too many people in the world, and that overpopulation is the biggest threat to the environment:
“With the increase in the human population has come an inevitable decline in other species. Land used for housing, roads, businesses, schools and other forms of human activity has displaced land in its natural state. California has already lost 99 percent of its native grasslands, 80 percent of its coastal wetlands, and 94 percent of its interior wetlands. The late David Brower, a CAPS Advisory Board member and the Sierra Club’s first executive director noted, ‘Overpopulation is perhaps the biggest problem facing us, and immigration is part of that problem. It has to be addressed.'”
On the same official website for Californians for Population Stabilization, there is a report that decries anti-abortion movements and expresses desire for more abortions to decrease human population:
“A host of other factors also have a bearing on our current sorry state – the often long lag times between causes and effects in geophysical and ecological phenomena (climate change is a prime example); the backlash against birth control, family planning and abortion by religious and patriarchal special interests”
On their official website there is a report written by one of their Advisory Board Members, Leon Kolankiewicz, in which he promotes environmentalist Huey Johnson, and presents a statement regarding his work in the promotion of population decline through abortion. Kolankiewicz writes:
“Interestingly, many years ago, Johnson was also outspoken on the imperative of limiting population. According to CAPS [Californians for Population Stabilization] board member Prof. Otis L. Graham, Jr.’s 2008 book Immigration Reform and America’s Unchosen Future, Johnson once even got into hot water for his views when he was Resources Secretary. At a luncheon in Washington, D.C., Johnson:
‘…told his audience that it was time for a population limitation policy in California. He suggested ending tax subsidies for larger families and [he also suggested] support for abortion rights. Talking to reporters later, he added that the federal government ‘should tighten immigration rules.’”
Gaffney is working with these types of people and organizations, which means that he is collaborating with green “deep ecology” fascists who want to murder people for the sake of their pagan earth god. This is just another reason to point to the Nazi roots and associations of the Counterjihad.
The Left are international socialists, and so they tend to initially focus on population control for the world; while the Right are national socialists, and tend to, at first, be fixated on population control for the nation. So while the Left will be particularly focused on abortion and contraception as solutions, the Right will focus on immigration control as a solution.
Both are anti-human at the end of the day, and while the Left is internationally focused, they will ultimately transgress against nations; and while the Right focuses on the nation, they will inevitably become international as they advance in power. And although the Right will many times portray themselves as being against abortion, they will always meet with the Left in agreement on abortion, the difference being that they will advocate for infanticide in the name of race, while the Left will support the same evil in the name of class.
The Left-Right dichotomy is the Shia-Sunni struggle of the world outside the Islamic realm. The Shia Muslim and Sunni Muslim both believe in Islam and the prophet Muhammad, but what polarizes them is the question on who took the mantle as the leader of the faithful after the death of Muhammad. The Left and the Right will both lead the world to anti-human ideologies, but their disagreement lies on which words to use. The Left loves to talk of being “international” and “global,” while the Right likes to speak of “the nation,” “nationalism,” “the folks,” and the like. Either way, both result in people before a firing squad. As long as political forces believe in Darwinism, they will always bring death and confusion.
The only true path that leads to an authentic universalism and love for humanity, is the Catholic Faith.
Guzzardi is also vehemently anti-Catholic, writing that because the Church tends to be more merciful to illegal immigrants, that it is an enemy to the United States:
“Let`s not kid ourselves. We can no longer consider the Catholic clergy as merely our spiritual advisors who have our best interests at heart. We have to acknowledge that the cardinals, bishops and priests are daunting foes who have become leftwing, open borders radicals—as much our enemy, and America`s, as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Foundation, the League of United Latin American Citizens or the Southern Poverty Law Center. Moral: Patriots who work for immigration sanity must beware the wolf in the clerical collar.”
The eugenists and racialists of our time are increasing in their wont to attribute the “migration crises” to the Catholic Church and the Jews. I believe this was the agenda behind the migration crises in Europe: cause anger amongst the masses, create a savior figure to act as the solution, and point to an enemy as a source of the problem. More and more frequently are we seeing Counterjihad and Right-wing activists blaming the Jews on the migrant situation. For example, on the website of the major Alt-Right radio station, Red Ice, it blames the Jews for the migrant crises:
“The answer to the question why Jews seem to have a predilection for multiculturalism in the host countries they reside in, is that they as a seemingly invisible minority among lots of other more visible and apparently problematic minorities no more appear as a social category, and thus they can undisturbed continue to exercise their power by promoting their ethnic group interests at the expense of the indigenous peoples. The aim is to destroy the traditional Western culture and weaken its civilization; to divide and weaken the northern European-derived populations, break down their ethnic consciousness and national cohesion, so that they never again will have the opportunity to organize an ethnically conscious and collectivist movement like the German National Socialism of the 1930s.”
Ingrid Carlqvist is a Swedish Counterjihadist who works directly with Robert Spencer as part of their “Free Press Society” project, and she as well blames the Jews for the migrant crises in Sweden. Ingrid has also been invited numerous times to speak for FrontPage Magazine and also was on CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network Network) alongside the Marxist Lars Hedegaard to talk about the “migrant crises” in Sweden.
Carlqvist spent over an hour doing an interview with Red Ice on why the Jews are to blame on the migrant crises, and she also reveals her Nazi sympathies when she says that the Nazis did not kill the Jews for no reason, as if the Jews exterminated in death camps did something to deserve it:
FRANK GAFFNEY’S SUPPORT FOR ARMING JIHADISTS
The Counterjihad loves to boast about how anti-jihad they are. But the reality is that its godfather, Frank Gaffney, was all for arming jihadists.
In 1995, Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy published an article written by staunch interventionist William Safire, pushing for the US to work with Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to provide Muslim Bosnian fighters with sophisticated military technology to fight the pro-Russian Christian Serbs. This type of plan is exactly what Operation Gladio was about: training anti-Russian militias, be they Nazi or Muslim, to neutralize Soviet influence in Europe. The report reads:
“Mr. Clinton should lead the West to join nations like Pakistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia to finance purchase of antitank, antiaircraft and intelligence-communications equipment.”
The report goes on to advocate for providing the Bosnian army with arms, training and air power:
“Bosnia already has 120,000 troops, all the troops it needs today to defend its whittled-down borders. They are mainly Bosnian Muslims, with some indigenous Croats. What those troops need is defensive arms, the training to use those arms, and the sustained air cover to give them the time to get that training. Here’s where Clinton has been snookered again by Europeans who want no Muslim state on their Continent.
They keep claiming that lifting the embargo on arms for Bosnian self-defense would prolong the war. Time has demonstrated how mistaken that defeatist European story is. One-sided arming led to war; only by equipping Muslim troops with comparable firepower can a balance be struck that could lead to peace.”
In 1994, Gaffney wrote an article pushing for the US to support Muslim Chechen fighters against the Russians:
“The Center for Security Policy believes, accordingly, that the United States must demonstrate convincingly its opposition to such trends in Russia. The place to start is with Chechnya. Washington must stop dismissing this odious military crackdown as a legitimate, if regrettable, response to an internal problem — a response reminiscent of the Bush Administration’s when Mikhail Gorbachev used force to suppress growing dissent in the Baltic states.
It should, instead, 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. The United States should stand with those genuinely committed to such practices and norms — and not fall prey once again to the temptation to cling to leaders who may have done so once, but whose actions indicate they no longer do. If President Clinton cannot bring himself to make such a principled statement, the Congress must do so at the first possible opportunity.”
Gaffney and his eugenist founded Center for Security Policy supported arming the Muslim jihadists in the 90s to go against the Russians. This sounds exactly like Gladio, which was designed to support and arm anti-Russian forces, and that includes Muslim jihadists and Nazis. And after the Muslims struck and attention began to be built around jihadist activities, Gaffney and his ilk — after advocating for arming the Muslims — is now against the Muslims and is promoting eugenist organizations.
Lets see, an organization, like the Center for Security Policy, is financially founded by a eugenist — Richard Mellon Scaife — and they at first support the Islamists, and then after the Islamists struck — thanks to policies that Gaffney supported — this same organization finances the Counterjihad and is promoting eugenics. It all makes perfect sense once you have an awareness of the diabolical planning that lies behind this scheme: create the problem of Islamic terrorism, and then finance a whole network of supposed Counterjihad groups; make propaganda using jargon like “Western civilization,” “White Europe,” “They are threatening our way of life,” as guises to cover up the true agenda of spreading eugenist and racialist ideology.
FRANK GAFFNEY AND THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
Frank Gaffney is most definitely connected with the eugenist organization, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) which, like the Center for Security Policy and the Heritage Foundation, was financially founded by the same murderous eugenist billionaire: Richard Mellon Scaife. There is a document from the CIA archives that shows that Gaffney, while analyzing the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty in 1987, was working for AEI:
On the Advisory Council for the Center for Security Policy, is Michael Rubin, who is a Resident Scholar for the major eugenist and Right-wing American Enterprise Institute.
Michael Rubin, who works for the American Enterprise Institute, and is on the Advisory Board for Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, is an agent who pushes American policy for dangerous causes. In one interview that was published by the American Enterprise Institute, Michael Rubin says that Israel should give weapons to Azerbaijan to attack Armenia, since Armenia has a stronger relationship with Iran than it does with the US. Michael Rubin says:
“The Armenians receive assistance from Iran, and so it would make sense if Azerbaijan could access Israeli weaponry and training. Clearly, neither Armenia nor Russia are sincere about ending the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkey is occupied elsewhere, and so it makes perfect sense for Azerbaijan to reach out to friends to right a wrong that Azerbaijan has suffered for two decades.”
If the US or whoever arms Azerbaijan to kill Armenians, who does that help? Turkey, since it was the Turkish Ottoman Empire that butchered over a million Armenians in the 20th century.
While the American Enterprise Institute touts itself as being “conservative,” they are a conduit for the teaching of eugenics and racial supremacy. There was an article published by AEI, written by its Adjunct Fellow, eugenist Jon Entine, which says “Jews are a genetic goldmine.” Entine goes on to write:
“For hundreds of years, the smartest, most literate male Jews–the rabbis and moneylenders–mated with the wealthiest and wisest daughters, ensuring the spread of “smart genes,” due to arranged marriages.”
Entine describes Judaism as a biologically and race based religion:
“Finding links between Judaism and DNA, even flattering hints of genetically-shaped high IQ, is particularly unnerving considering the lessons of Jewish history. Yet we can’t escape the fact that Judaism is different from Christianity or Islam. It’s not purely faith-based. It originated as a tribal religion, tied to nationhood. It remains a rich tapestry with threads of faith, land, and blood ancestry–a genetic as well as a cultural inheritance.”
The Jews who rejected Christ would make Judaism from being spirituality to racialism; they rejected the Messiah, the Temple was destroyed, and they rejected the Church. Those who enter the Church, are part of the true religion of Israel. But the Jews who’ve been wanting nothing to do with the Church, needed to make a new religion altogether. Once they rejected the Messiah, they had no temple to go to, and so their race, their blood, became their religion.
Hence why they were enraged at St. John the Baptist, when he exclaimed to the Jewish authorities: “And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” (Matthew 3:9) St. John the Baptist was combating the racism of the Jews, and when they rejected their Messiah, they only amplified their racial pride. With hatred for the Messiah of mankind, and with no temple, the only god they could look up to, is the one of race. The rejection of God, always leads to the extolling of genetics.
Entine is for the genocide of children with deformities. In one article he wrote, which was published on AEI’s website, entitled, “Let’s (cautiously) celebrate the ‘new eugenics’”, Entine promotes eugenics and for the extermination of children with deformities:
“We now have researchers with the scientific know-how working with Wall Street-backed corporations to develop the new weapon in the struggle to rid the world of people with developmental disabilities: a “non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT)” that can detect a “disability” or “genetic disorder” anywhere from the fifth to ninth week of pregnancy without amniocentesis. One of the first “disorders” targeted by NIPT technologies is Down syndrome (DS). Although this test is sometimes promoted for “women at risk” for having children with DS, often the long-term goal of this technology is universal testing. To be blunt, this test will likely result in a rapidly decreasing population of people with DS.
As parents of DS children and as activists in the disability rights movement, their pain is understandable. But that does not make their desire to ban or heavily restrict this technology persuasive or wise. Abortion is a prickly issue, contentious and personal, entangled with legal and moral standards that vary from community to community. Lewis and Reiskin advance a moral argument as a backdoor way to promote changes in the legal landscape, and I believe they do so disingenuously. If successful, their efforts would lead to curtailments in abortion rights and limits on genetic health screens. Almost all communities in the United States, Europe and most other Western countries allow for the termination of pregnancies when the mother is found to be carrying a fetus with a genetic disease. The raw truth is that prospective parents would prefer having children with no genetic defects. There is already broad national support for screening fetuses to determine whether they contain genetic abnormalities: amniocentesis. It involves inserting a needle through the uterus to withdraw fluid and fetal cells from the amniotic sac.
As the opinion piece noted, 80 to 90 percent of women who receive a positive amniocentesis test for DS choose to terminate their pregnancy. Although controversial in its early days, it’s now a broadly accepted procedure that ultimately results in the termination of tens of thousands of pregnancies every year.”
There is another article published by AEI, written by the eugenist, Charles Murray, in which he writes:
“I begin with the assumption that elevated Jewish intelligence is grounded in genetics. It is no longer seriously disputed that intelligence in Homo sapiens is substantially heritable. …Hence my view that something in the genes explains elevated Jewish IQ.”
So lets summarize what we learned in this investigation. The entire Counterjihad movement was established through think-tanks like the Center for Security Policy and the Heritage Foundation; both of these institutes were financially founded by a eugenist named Richard Mellon Scaife who worked directly with Margaret Sanger and gave millions to Planned Parenthood. What this is establishes is that the foundation of the Counterjihad was financed by a eugenist, and thus the very underpinnings of the movement is Darwinist in nature. This explains why the road of the Counterjihad movement ended with an acceptance of atheism, Darwinism and homosexuality.
Moreover, the Heritage Foundation and the Free Congress Foundation worked directly with Eastern European Nazis like Laslo Pasztor and Ivan Dochev, and also would later work with Robert Spencer in an effort that would help begin the Counterjihad movement. Pasztor and Dochev and their Hungarian Freedom Fighters worked directly with the CIA in training and recruiting people to be a part of a paramilitary force, and this was being done at the same time of the CIA’s Operation Gladio. Also at the same time as Gladio, Paul Weyrich was collaborating with Pasztor, and Weyrich would later work with Robert Spencer. All of this demonstrates that the Counterjihad sprung from the same ideological and political forces. The CIA conducted Gladio; the CIA worked with Pasztor; the CIA worked with Sciaife; the CIA worked with Gaffney; Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, alongside EU politician Philip DeWinter, established the Counterjihad as a movement. This all sheds light on the reality that the Counterjihad movement indeed is one government enterprise.
The Counterjihad is a frankenstein monster created in the labs of the elite. We are all in the laboratory of the political climate shifters, but I hope that enough of us have enough awareness not to be lab rats.