Iran, Iraq, & The Axis Of Sanity

Authored by Brett Redmayne-Titley via,

No other country in the Middle East is as important in countering America’s rush to provide Israel with another war than Iraq. Fortunately for Iran, the winds of change in Iraq and the many other local countries under similar threat, thus, make up an unbroken chain of border to border support. This support is only in part due to sympathy for Iran and its plight against the latest bluster by the Zio-American bully.

In the politics of the Middle East, however, money is at the heart of all matters. As such, this ring of defensive nations is collectively and quickly shifting towards the new Russo/ Sino sphere of economic influence. These countries now form a geo-political defensive perimeter that, with Iraq entering the fold, make a US ground war virtually impossible and an air war very restricted in opportunity.

If Iraq holds, there will be no war in Iran.

In the last two months, Iraq parliamentarians have been exceptionally vocal in their calls for all foreign military forces- particularly US forces- to leave immediately. Politicians from both blocs of Iraq’s divided parliament called for a vote to expel US troops and promised to schedule an extraordinary session to debate the matter. “Parliament must clearly and urgently express its view about the ongoing American violations of Iraqi sovereignty,” said Salam al-Shimiri, a lawmaker loyal to the populist cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Iraq’s ambassador to Moscow, Haidar Mansour Hadi, went further saying that Iraq “does not want a new devastating war in the region.” He told a press conference in Moscow this past week, “Iraq is a sovereign nation. We will not let [the US] use our territory,” he said. Other comments by Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi agreed. Other MPs called for a timetable for complete US troop withdrawal.

Then a motion was introduced demanding war reparations from the US and Israel for using internationally banned weapons while destroying Iraq for seventeen years and somehow failing to find those “weapons of mass destruction.”

As Iraq/ Iran economic ties continue to strengthen, with Iraq recently signing on for billions of cubic meters of Iranian natural gas, the shift towards Russian influence– an influence that prefers peace- was certified as Iraq sent a delegation to Moscow to negotiate the purchase of the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system.

To this massive show of pending democracy and rapidly rising Iraqi nationalism, US Army spokesman, Colonel Ryan Dillon, provided the kind of delusion only the Zio-American military is known for, saying,

Our continued presence in Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to need, in coordination with and by the approval of the Iraqi government.”

Good luck with that.

US influence in Iraq came to a possible conclusion this past Saturday, May 18, 2019, when it was reported that the Iraqi parliament would vote on a bill compelling the invaders to leave. Speaking about the vote on the draft bill, Karim Alivi, a member of the Iraqi parliament’s national security and defense committee, said on Thursday that the country’s two biggest parliamentary factions — the Sairoon bloc, led by Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Fatah alliance, headed by secretary general of the Badr Organization, Hadi al-Ameri — supported the bill.

Strangely, Saturday’s result has not made it to the media as yet, and American meddling would be a safe guess as to the delay, but the fact that this bill would certainly have passed strongly shows that Iraq well understands the weakness of the American bully: Iraq’s own US militarily imposed democracy.

Iraq shares a common border with Iran that the US must have for any ground war. Both countries also share a similar religious demographic where Shia is predominant and the plurality of cultures substantially similar and previously living in harmony. Both also share a very deep seeded and deserved hatred of Zio- America. Muqtada al-Sadr, who, after coming out first in the 2018 Iraqi elections, is similar to Hizbullah’s Hassan Nasrallah in his religious and military influence within the well trained and various Shia militias. He is firmly aligned with Iran as is Fattah Alliance. Both detest Zio- America.

A ground invasion needs a common and safe border. Without Iraq, this strategic problem for US forces becomes complete. The other countries also with borders with Iran are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. All have several good reasons that they will not, or cannot, be used for ground forces.

With former Armenian President Robert Kocharian under arrest in the aftermath of the massive anti-government 2018 protests, Bolton can check that one off the list first. Azerbaijan is mere months behind the example next door in Armenia, with protests increasing and indicating a change towards eastern winds. Regardless, Azerbaijan, like Turkmenistan, is an oil producing nation and as such is firmly aligned economically with Russia. Political allegiance seems obvious since US influence is limited in all three countries to blindly ignoring the massive additional corruption and human rights violations by Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow.

However, Russian economic influence pays in cash. Oil under Russian control is the lifeblood of both of these countries. Recent developments and new international contracts with Russia clearly show whom these leaders are actually listening to.

Turkey would appear to be firmly shifting into Russian influence. A NATO member in name only. Ever since he shot down his first- and last- Russian fighter jet, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has thumbed his nose at the Americans. Recently he refused to succumb to pressure and will receive Iranian oil and, in July, the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft/missile system. This is important since there is zero chance Putin will relinquish command and control or see them missiles used against Russian armaments. Now, Erdogan is considering replacing his purchase of thirty US F-35s with the far superior Russian SU- 57 and a few S-500s for good measure.

Economically, America did all it could to stop the Turk Stream gas pipeline installed by Russia’s Gazprom, that runs through Turkey to eastern Europe and will provide $billions to Erdogan and Turkey. It will commence operation this year. Erdogan continues to purchase Iranian oil and to call for Arab nations to come together against US invasion in Iran. This week, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar renewed Turkey’s resolve, saying his country is preparing for potential American sanctions as a deadline reportedly set by the US for Ankara to cancel the S-400 arms deal with Russia or face penalties draws near.

So, Turkey is out for both a ground war and an air war since the effectiveness of all those S-400’s might be put to good use if America was to launch from naval positions in the Mediterranean. Attacking from the Black Sea is out since it is ringed by countries under Russo/ Sino influence and any attack on Iran will have to illegally cross national airspace aligned with countries preferring the Russo/ Sino alliance that favours peace. An unprovoked attack would leave the US fleet surrounded with the only safe harbours in Romania and Ukraine. Ships move much slower than missiles.

Afghanistan is out, as the Taliban are winning. Considering recent peace talks from which they walked out and next slaughtered a police station near the western border with Iran, they have already won. Add the difficult terrain near the Iranian border and a ground invasion is very unlikely

Although new Pakistani President Imran Khan has all the power and authority of a primary school crossing guard, the real power within the Pakistani military, the ISI, is more than tired of American influence. ISI has propagated the Taliban for years and often gave refuge to Afghan anti-US forces allowing them to use their common border for cover. Although in the past ISI has been utterly mercenary in its very duplicitous- at least- foreign allegiances, after a decade of US drone strikes on innocent Pakistanis, the chance of ground-based forces being allowed is very doubtful. Like Afghanistan terrain also increases this unlikelihood.

Considerations as to terrain and location for a ground war and the resulting failure of not doing so was shown to Israel previously when, in 2006 Hizbullah virtually obliterated its ground attack, heavy armour and battle tanks in the hills of southern Lebanon. In further cautionary detail, this failure cost PM Ehud Olmert his job.

For the Russo/Sino pact nations, or those leaning in their direction, the definition of national foreign interest is no longer military, it is economic. Those with resources and therefore bright futures within the expanding philosophy and economic offerings of the Russo/ Sino pact have little use any longer for the “Sorrows of Empire.” These nation’s leaders, if nothing more than to line their own pockets, have had a very natural epiphany: War…is not, for them, profitable.

For Iran, the geographic, economic and therefore geo-political ring of defensive nations is made complete by Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Syria, like Iraq, has every reason to despise the Americans and similar reasons to embrace Iran, Russia, China and border neighbour Lebanon. Syria now has its own Russian S-300 system which is already bringing down Israeli missiles. It is surprising that Lebanon has not requested a few S-300s of their own.

No one knows what Hizbullah has up its sleeve, but it has been enough to keep the Israelis at bay. Combined with a currently more prepared Lebanese army, Lebanon under the direction of Nasrallah is a formidable nation for its size. Ask Israel.

Lebanon and Syria also take away the chance of a ground-based attack, leaving the US Marines and Army to stare longingly across the Persian Gulf open waters from Saudi Arabia or one of its too few and militarily insignificant allies in the southern Gulf region.

Friendly airspace will also be vastly limited, so also gone will be the tactical element of surprise of any incoming attack. The reality of this defensive ring of nations means that US military options will be severely limited. The lack of a ground invasion threat and the element of surprise will allow Iranian defences to prioritize and therefore be dramatically more effective. As shown in a previous article, The Return of the Madness of M.A.D, Iran like Russia and China, after forty years of US/ Israeli threats, has developed new weapons and military capabilities, that combined with tactics will make any direct aggression towards it by American forces a fair fight.

If the US launches a war it will go it alone except for the few remaining US lapdogs like the UK, France, Germany and Australia, but with anti-US emotions running as wild across the EU as in the southern Caspian nations, the support of these Zionist influenced EU leaders is not necessarily guaranteed.

Regardless, a lengthy public ramp-up to stage military assets for an attack by the US will be seen by the vast majority of the world- and Iran- as an unprovoked act of war. Certainly at absolute minimum Iran will close the Straits of Hormuz, throwing the price of oil skyrocketing and world economies into very shaky waters. World capitalist leaders will not be happy. Without a friendly landing point for ground troops, the US will either have to abandon this strategy in favour of an air war or see piles of body bags of US servicemen sacrificed to Israeli inspired hegemony come home by the thousands just months before the ’20 primary season. If this is not military and economic suicide, it is certainly political.

Air war will likely see a similar disaster. With avenues of attack severely restricted, obvious targets such as Iran’s non-military nuclear program and major infrastructure will be thus more easily defended and the likelihood of the deaths of US airmen similarly increased.

In terms of Naval power, Bolton would have only the Mediterranean as a launch pad, since using the Black Sea to initiate war will see the US fleet virtually surrounded by nations aligned with the Russo/ Sino pact. Naval forces, it should be recalled, are, due to modern anti-ship technologies and weapons, now the sitting ducks of blusterous diplomacy. A hot naval war in the Persian Gulf, like a ground war, will leave a US death toll far worse than the American public has witnessed in their lifetimes and the US navy in tatters.

Trump is already reportedly seething that his machismo has been tarnished by Bolton and Pompeo’s false assurances of an easy overthrow of Maduro in Venezuela. With too many top generals getting jumpy about him initiating a hot war with Iraq, Bolton’s stock in trade-war is waning. Trump basks in being the American bully personified, but he and his ego will not stand for being exposed as weak. Remaining as president is necessary to stoke his shallow character. When Trump’s limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war with Iran more than they want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren political prostitute instead, even America’s marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master’s blood lust for war.

In two excellent articles in Asia times by Pepe Escobar, he details the plethora of projects, agreements, and cooperation that are taking place from Asia to the Mid-East to the Baltics. Lead by Russia and China this very quickly developing Russo/ Sino pact of economic opportunity and its intentions of “soft power” collectively spell doom for Zio-America’s only remaining tactics of influence: military intervention. States, Escobar:

We should know by now that the heart of the 21stCentury Great Game is the myriad layers of the battle between the United States and the partnership of Russia and China. The long game indicates Russia and China will break down language and cultural barriers to lead Eurasian integration against American economic hegemony backed by military might.”

The remaining civilized world, that which understands the expanding world threat of Zio-America, can rest easy. Under the direction of this new Russo/ Sino influence, without Iraq, the US will not launch a war on Iran.

This growing Axis of Sanity surrounds Iran geographically and empathetically, but more importantly, economically. This economy, as clearly stated by both Putin and Xi, does not benefit from any further wars of American aggression. In this new allegiance to future riches, it is Russian and China that will call the shots and a shooting war involving their new client nations will not be sanctioned from the top.

However, to Putin, Xi and this Axis of Sanity: If American wishes to continue to bankrupt itself by ineffective military adventures of Israel’s making, rather than fix its own nation that is in societal decline and desiccated after decades of increasing Zionist control, well…

That’s just good for business!

Eliminating Free Speech The Corporatist Way

Authored by Jeff Thomas via,

Left-wing activists have recently been increasingly active in seeking to limit opposing political viewpoints, in order to create a more ubiquitous “groupthink.” One effort in accomplishing this has been to propose the creation of a “Human Rights Committee” in order to monitor the economic transactions of “white supremacist groups and anti-Islam activists.”

This should not be surprising, as, throughout the former Free World, collectivists are, increasingly, coming out of the closet and seeking to eliminate any and all opposition to their cause.

And this should not, in itself, be alarming, as it should be both predictable and understandable that any politically driven group, be it left-leaning or right-leaning, would seek to gain an advantage over its opposite number.

What may be a real cause for alarm, however, is that those whom they are trying to rope into their effort are banks and corporations… and that they’re succeeding without a shot being fired.

It might be hoped that those champions of industry and commerce would at least put up a perfunctory fight, but clearly, this is not the case. They’re not only caving in; they’re entirely on board.

As an example, MasterCard is considering the selective restriction of individuals from their services and funds. Those individuals would be the ones that held unacceptable political views.

But they’re not the first in the queue to economically force people to have “correct” views. PayPal and Patreon have barred selected individuals from receiving payments through their services when those individuals have been identified as holding “extreme views.” More alarmingly, they’ve been supported in this decision by the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Journalist Ben Swann has commented that this means that the US government has granted “big corporations the ability to control what voices are heard.”

The reader will already be familiar with the fact that major corporations that are led by liberally aligned executives, such as Facebook, Twitter and Amazon, have already proudly stated that they wish to do their part to freeze out those whose opinions they disagree with.

Of course, in a free world, the head of a privately held corporation should be free to do business with only those individuals he approves of. Although that might make him discriminating, he should have the right to be discriminating.

The concern here, though, is that there’s nothing on the horizon that’s aimed at limiting collectivist notions. All the restrictions are being applied to those who are conservative, libertarian, or in fact, anything but collectivist.

There’s clearly an all-encompassing effort to not only silence non-collectivists in the media (including social media), but to silence them through the loss of economic freedom.

And the campaign is unfolding dramatically, on many fronts, at the same time. It would not be rash to suggest that, by 2020, it may not be safe for an individual to express any non-collectivist position by that time, for fear of being cut out of the economic structure.

Back in the early part of the twentieth century, the Bolsheviks did a wonderful job of eliminating the existence of views that opposed collectivism, through the use of concentration camps and execution. Later in the century, the Nazi (abbreviation for Nationalsozialistische, or National Socialist Party) also did a bang-up job of disappearing dissent against their rhetoric.

But Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Goebbels would all have their hats off to the new American version of collectivist propaganda, which is not only attacking freedom of speech in the media, but using economic warfare to ensure that, in the future, the only propaganda will be collectivist propaganda.

This is a tactic these past collectivist leaders would have envied, as the results of economic pressure can be so immediate and permanent.

And clearly, large banks, corporations and the US government are fully on board.

This latter fact informs us that the move to a collectivist society in the US is not merely the work of some extremist groups; it is, indeed, the intended “New America.”

One hundred years ago, the US began a decline into corporatism, with the introduction of the Federal Reserve as the overlord of US banking. Since that time, there has been a steady decline in freedoms in the US, interrupted only by the capitalist boom years that were brought on by World War II.

And we now see the culmination of that long-sought-after objective. The American public are not only being phased into the fuller conversion to a collectivist society; they’re being forced into it through economic punishment, should they take any other view.

There can be no question that virtually all of the restrictions of free speech are intended to limit any thought other than collectivist thought.

But the more important take-away here is that this is not a mere ploy by a political group. It has the support of the financial industry, corporate America and the government (through the US Securities and Exchange Commission).

This tells us that the Deep State – that collective body that actually rules the US above the political structure – is on board for a conversion of the US into a fully collectivist state.

This objective should not be surprising, as rulers always wish, first and foremost, to rule. And as such, they will always seek to obtain total control, if possible. Collectivism is the key to that goal. The greater the degree of collectivism, the greater the level of totalitarianism.

In limiting free speech through economics, they’re now going about it the smart way. But this in itself should not be too surprising. What may be surprising is that the changes necessary to bring that about are happening so quickly.

For the US, this is much like Russia, circa 1917, or Germany, circa 1937. The question is no longer whether the government intends to institute totalitarianism. The question is how much time remains before the transition is complete.

This question should give us pause. Its answer would define the remaining shelf-life of the US, as a country that’s desirable as a place to reside.

SEA OF RED: Majority Of U.S. Shale Companies Took A Beating Q1 2019


The overwhelming majority of U.S. shale companies were hit hard due to lower oil prices in the first quarter of the year. Just about every shale company that I keep track of suffered negative free cash flows in Q1 2019. This was quite a surprise as Rystad Energy claimed that the breakeven price for U.S. tight oil (shale oil) was the second lowest in the world at $46 a barrel, right behind Saudi Arabia at $42.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), the average West Texas Oil price in Q1 2019 was $54.82, down from $60 in the last quarter of 2018. However, even with receiving nearly $55 a barrel, the majority of U.S. shale companies posted negative free cash flows. I was quite surprised when I researched the data.

As we can see in the chart below, sixteen of the leading U.S. shale companies posted a total of $3.2 billion of negative free cash flow:

Hess suffered the largest negative free cash flow at a negative $433 million, while Continental Resources was the “best of the worst” at -$32 million. Here is the list of the companies shown above:

While it’s true that I did not include every shale company in the list above, it’s a pretty extensive group. Furthermore, I did not include the free cash flow from the big three U.S. oil companies, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips as they still produce a lot of conventional and offshore oil. However, one shale company that I did not include in the list above was APC – Anadarko Petroleum. Anadarko posted a negative $260 million in free cash flow in Q1 2019.

Regardless, we can clearly see that even at $55 a barrel, the majority of U.S. shale companies were still spending more money than they received from operations in the first quarter of the year. Again, the total free cash flow of the group was a negative $3.2 billion.

NOTE: For those who don’t understand the term Free Cash Flow, the companies calculate that figure by subtracting total capital expenditures from cash from operations. It’s important for companies to show “positive” free cash flow as they need the funds to grow their business, pay dividends, or buy back stock. However, many shale companies listed above have suffered negative free cash flows for many years, which forced them to increase their debt or issue stock to fund business or grow production.

Unfortunately, due to the U.S. shale oil industry’s rapid decline rate, and negative free cash flows, many of these companies added a great deal of debt to their balance sheets to grow production over the past decade. To service this debt, these companies pay a quarterly interest expense. According to the data taken from, these sixteen shale companies paid nearly $900 million of interest expense in just the first quarter of the year:

Thus, for the entire year, these shale companies will pay roughly $3.6 billion only to service the debt. How much is $3.6 billion of interest expense in one year? Well, that would purchase 65 million barrels of oil at $55 a barrel. But, of course, these companies only pay a portion of each oil barrel to pay for the interest expense. If we assume $5 for each barrel for their interest expense, that will take 2 million barrels per day of oil production. That’s correct. These shale companies need to produce 2 million barrels of oil per day for an entire year at $5 a barrel just to pay their interest expense.

It will be interesting to check the financial data from these companies in Q2 2019 as the oil price has recovered a bit and is up $7 a barrel more than it was in the first quarter. So, the higher oil price should provide these companies more cash from operations. I will do an update when the earnings are released at the beginning of the summer.

Lastly, higher oil prices will certainly allow the U.S. Shale Oil Ponzi to continue longer than lower oil prices. However, if the U.S. and global economies head into a recession, then all bets are off as lower prices will likely pull the rug out from under the Shale Industry.

The “Wealthy” Threshold In America Is Now $2.3 Million

Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
by Tyler Durden

Now, people claim that in order to be “rich”, they need to be worth and average of $2.3 million, or “more than 20 times the actual median net worth of U.S. households,” according to Bloomberg. The number is down from $2.4 million the previous two times the survey was issued. The survey notes that the older someone gets, the higher their bar goes for what they consider as “wealthy”. Baby boomers say you need to have $2.6 million to be “wealthy”, which is 35% higher than what millennials think.

For someone to be considered “financially comfortable” the threshold falls significantly. The average amount needed to be “comfortable” was $1.1 million, and only Gen Z believed that under a million ($909,600) was acceptable.

The survey sampled 1,000 Americans between the ages of 21 and 75. It also revealed that the majority of Americans “crave” real estate. More than 50% of those surveyed said that if they got a $1 million windfall, they’d spend it on real estate. This sentiment held truest particularly among millennials (roughly age 22 to 37).

More than 75% of millennials surveyed also said their personal definition of wealth was “really about the way they live their lives, rather than a discrete dollar amount.” Call us old fashioned, but we still prefer the money for our definition.

Even richer (pun intended) is the fact that 60% of these same millennials believe they will be wealthy “within 1 to 10 years”. And just wait until they find out that becoming wealthy may hinge on ignoring their friends social media posts. The survey also found that overspending on things found on social media was the largest “bad” influence on how millennials managed their money.

And the trend of social media influencing negative spending looks like it will only continue. For instance, Instagram said in March that it’s testing a shopping feature, which we noted in this totally serious and 100% not sarcastic article about millennials becoming friends with houseplants.

Despite their visions of grandeur, the economic “growth”, and low unemployment, 59% of those surveyed said they still live paycheck to paycheck. Meanwhile, despite the supposedly great economic data, the largest U.S. banks are seeing losses on credit cards outpace those of auto and home loans at a rate not seen in at least 10 years even as credit card interest rates are the highest in history.

America Will Lose The Trade War Because [That Is What Globalists Want To Happen] It Lost

Authored by Brandon Smith via,


Global Banking Elites And The Controlled Demolition Of The US

I have been writing extensively on the controlled demolition of the US economy for some time now. In January of 2018 I predicted in my article ‘Party While You Can – Central Bank Ready To Pop The Everything Bubble’ that Jerome Powell and the Federal Reserve would pursue policy tightening and would continue until the bubble in fundamentals, corporate debt, consumer debt, housing, retail, stock markets, etc. collapsed. So far I have been proven correct; the fundamentals are plunging, and only stock markets remain. In the 2nd quarter of 2019 the Fed is still cutting assets exponentially from its balance sheet and still refuses to pull interest rates back from their neutral rate of inflation, despite the predictions of many in the mainstream and alternative media.

The Fed has used the tactic of addictive stimulus measures and artificially low interest rates to create massive financial bubbles in the past. And, they almost always use tightening policies in times of economic weakness to deliberately pop those bubbles. For example, this is exactly what happened at the onset of the Great Depression. As former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke openly admitted in 2002 in an address in honor of Milton Friedman:

"In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn.

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again."

And yet, it IS happening again today. As the economy nosedives, banking institutions buy up more hard assets and consolidate more power, and each time global economic management is suggested as a possible solution to the very crisis they created.

My question has never been “Will there be a crash?” A crash of the US is mathematically inevitable, it is happening now in accelerated fashion, and has been progressing in various ways since 2008. Instead my question has always been “How do the globalists plan to get away with it?”

In my article ‘Trump Trade Wars A Perfect Smokescreen For A Market Crash’, published in March 2018, I outlined exactly how they plan to get away with it. In that article I examined the strange number of similarities in policy and politics between Donald Trump and Herbert Hoover, including the use of large scale tariffs right before the collapse of the US financial system. While it was the Federal Reserve’s interest rate increases into weakness that exacerbated and prolonged the Great Depression for many years, it was Herbert Hoover’s policies (and sometimes the gold standard) that were blamed for the crash.

In other words, Donald Trump is following almost the exact same path as Herbert Hoover, and Trump’s trade war with China is being used by the banking elites as cover for their sabotage of the US economy. In the end, it will be Trump and all of his “populist” followers that will get the blame for the destabilization of our financial structure. The central bankers have a perfect scapegoat.

Trump And The False Left/Right Paradigm

But how could the banking elites and globalists possibly predict Trump’s behavior in order to take advantage of it? Well, if you look at Trump’s background as well as the number of elites he has placed within his own cabinet, the reality if the situation becomes clear: Trump is a puppet, and always has been.

In my article ‘Trump Is A Pied Piper For The New World Order’ I outlined Trump’s history with the banking elites, including his relationship with Rothschild banking agent Wilber Ross, who bailed Trump out of his debts and saved him from the effects of bankruptcy in the 1990’s. Trump’s biggest campaign promise in 2016 was to “drain the swamp” in Washington D.C. of the financial elitists and globalists that Hillary Clinton was so closely tied to. But, when he entered the White House, he made Wilber Ross his Secretary of Commerce, hired on Goldman Sachs goons like Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, and he has brought warmongering psychopathic think tank members like John Bolton and Mike Pompeo into his cabinet.

The globalists don’t have to predict Trump’s behavior, they dictate Trump’s behavior. Thus, the false left/right paradigm reigns supreme once again; the same paradigm many Trump followers thought they were escaping by rallying against a Clinton presidency.

Current Trump cheerleaders completely ignore this fact, however. I have not seen a single one of them confront the issue of Trump’s cabinet or his associations with the Rothschilds. They either ignore it outright, or they claim Trump is “keeping his enemies close” or “using their expertise to free America”. This is insanity, but it showcases the power that false paradigms have. Conservatives were so afraid of Clinton that they jumped on the bandwagon of Trump’s controlled opposition administration, and they refuse to admit they have been conned.

How have globalists benefited from Trump being in the White House, though?

Trump has gone on to attach his presidency so closely to the performance of the economy and primarily stock markets, that any crash now will undoubtedly be blamed on him. This is strange behavior if you consider his statements during his campaign, including his assertion that the Fed was deliberately keeping interest rates low to protect Obama, and that the stock market was a giant fraudulent bubble. Today, Trump is demanding that the Fed funds rate be lowered and that stimulus be renewed, and, he has been Tweeting incessantly about how the economy under his watch is the "greatest ever".

To those who actually track the health of the US economy, Trump’s statements might seem delusional. If you understand that Trump is controlled opposition and that he is playing the scripted role of a bumbling villain, his statements make perfect sense. The US economy is NOT the greatest it has ever been, in fact, it is the worst it has been since the crash of 2008, as I evidenced in detail in my article ‘The Crash In US Economic Fundamentals Is Accelerating’. Trump is wrapping himself around the implosion of the Everything Bubble as a mascot of fiscal destruction, and he’s trying to drag all conservatives with him.

China And The False East/West Paradigm

The other side of the control mechanism for a crash of this magnitude is on the other side of the world – China. It is not only Trump that has to act a certain way in order to cover for the crash of the Everything Bubble, China must also play its role. The false East/West paradigm is perhaps the most pervasive of all false paradigms, for even many in the liberty movement think that governments in China or Russia are opposed to the elites in the US and Europe. This is simply not true.

China in particular has a long time relationship with Western globalists. In fact, modern China was essentially built by them.

The Rockefeller family and the Rockefeller Foundation have been influencing Chinese social and political developments since the late 1800’s. This started as seemingly innocuous, with the foundation initiating social and health related programs in rural areas, but as noted by historians with access to the Rockefeller Archives, the Rockefellers were not seeking to display their capacity for philanthropic charity, but pursuing wide reaching influence in Chinese society and politics. For more information, I highly recommend reading Frank Ninkovich’s study of the Rockefeller’s dominance in China for the past century in the Journal Of American History.

China’s central bank is currently linked to the Bank For international Settlements, which is often referred to as the “central bank of central banks” and as admitted in an article for Harpers in 1983, the BIS essentially writes policy for all member banks – this means the Chinese central bank AND the Federal Reserve are both controlled by the globalists at the BIS. This is even more evident in recent years as all major central banks have operated with an odd level of coordination to prop up the stock markets of other nations, including stock markets of nations that are supposedly in conflict.

China also now works closely with the IMF – the Yuan has been inducted into the SDR basket system, and China has called on multiple occasions for the SDR basket to replace the US dollar as the world reserve structure. The IMF is openly discussing the introduction of a cashless digital currency system based on blockchain technology, which I believe will be the likely replacement for ALL currencies when the time comes.

This means the trade war is a farce. When it comes to the elites of China and the US, there is no division and no conflict. They all want the same thing – global centralization.

The Trade War Smokescreen

For many years I have warned that the next World War would be an economic world war between the East and West, and that this war would be engineered by globalists as a mass distraction while they introduced their one world economic system. The crux of that economic war would be the eventual dumping of US treasuries by foreign central banks as well as the dollar as the world reserve currency.

What many pro-trade war people don’t seem to realize is that the dollar’s world reserve status was part of the original deal with China. China gained a trade surplus and access to US markets, the US gained a cheap labor pool, access to cheap goods and our currency was accepted by the Chinese as the foundation of international trade. But this dynamic no longer serves globalist interests in the new system they hope to create.

[As described in an article published in the Rothschild run magazine , China is intended to take a larger role in the IMF and become the economic engine for the "new world order", while the US is set to take a back seat in global affairs as the rest of the world moves away from the dollar. – n.e. that’s just paranoid nonsense]

This might be why US 10 year treasury auctions are seeing dismal results, and why the Chinese are now willing to threaten the dumping of US T-bonds through their state run media. China has NOT folded to US tariffs as so many people have been predicting for the past year. In fact, China has dug in even further.

China is the number one exporter/importer in the world. They now set the standard for international trade, not the US. If China follows through on threats to dump US treasuries, or if they dump the dollar as the world reserve, then most if not all of their trading partners will do the same. The consequences would be devastating for the US economy, which has a minimal manufacturing base and is utterly reliant on the international acceptance of the dollar to keep prices low and to prop up what’s left of our financial structure.

While proponents of the trade war keep insisting that manufacturing will come back to the US, this still has not materialized. Why would corporations spend all the money to rebuild factories in the US when they can simply stay in Asia and use the existing factories and cheap labor? There is no incentive for them to come back. If tariffs go higher, they can easily raise prices on consumers to support their bottom line.

The US is being set up for a spectacular fall. Those that claim China would never make such a move don’t understand the Chinese economy. The US market is only 18% of Chinese exports, and US consumption has been declining. The vast majority of China’s GDP comes from domestic consumption, and the claim that China is dependent on US markets to survive is one of the most widely perpetuated lies of the past decade. The Chinese will take a hit to their economy, certainly, but nowhere near the hit the US economy will take if they cut off the dollar as the primary trade mechanism.

The trade war only makes sense if you look at it from the globalist perspective. China will get hurt to an extent, the US will suffer an economic disaster it will never recover from, and only the globalists truly benefit. With tensions increasing, probably through the end of 2019, I suspect the Federal Reserve will increase cuts to their balance sheet under cover of the trade war. I also suspect that China’s central bank will finally cut off stimulus measures which have been keeping global stocks afloat for the past four months. This will eventually trigger the crash of markets on top of already plunging fundamentals.

The US will lose the trade war, Trump and conservatives will be blamed for the collapse, China will already be pre-positioned as the next economic engine for the world, and the IMF and BIS will introduce their one world currency system as the solution to the problem they created. Whether or not they succeed in this plan will greatly depend on whether or not enough people set aside their biases and accept that the whole thing was a farce from the very beginning.

The Holy Hook – Yahweh’s Trojan Horse into the Gentile City


Is the Church the whore of Yahweh?

I concluded an earlier article by what I regard as the most important “revelation” of modern biblical scholarship, one that has the potential to free the Western world from a two-thousand-year-old psychopathic bond: the jealous Yahweh was originally just the national god of Israel, repackaged into “the God of Heaven and Earth” during the Babylonian Exile, as part of a public relations campaign aimed at Persians, then Greeks and ultimately Romans. The resulting biblical notion that the universal Creator became Israel’s national god at the time of Moses, is thus exposed as a fictitious inversion of the historical process: in reality, it is the national god of Israel who, so to speak, impersonated the universal Creator at the time of Ezra—while remaining intensely ethnocentric.

The Book of Joshua is a good eye-opener to the biblical hoax, because its pre-exilic author never refers to Yahweh simply as “God,” and never implies that he is anything but “the god of Israel,” that is, “our god” for the Israelites, and “your god” for their enemies (25 times). Yahweh shows no interest in converting Canaanite peoples, whom he regards as worth less than their livestock. He doesn’t instruct Joshua to even try to convert them, but simply to exterminate them, in keeping with the war code he gave Moses in Deuteronomy 20.

However, we find in the Book of Joshua one isolated statement by a Canaanite woman that “Yahweh your god is God both in Heaven above and on Earth beneath” (2:11). Rahab, a prostitute in Jericho, makes that statement to two Israeli spies who spend the night with her, and whom she hides in exchange for being spared, together with her family, when the Israelites will take over the city and slaughter everyone, “men and women, young and old” (6:21). Rahab’s “profession of faith” is probably a post-exilic insertion, because it doesn’t fit well with her other claim that she is motivated by fear, not by faith: “we are afraid of you and everyone living in this country has been seized with terror at your approach” (2:9). Nevertheless, the combination of fear and faith is consistent with Yahweh’s ways.

The French Catholic Bible de Jérusalem—a scholarly translation by the Dominicans of the École Biblique, which served as guideline for the English Jerusalem Bible—adds a following footnote to Rahab’s “profession of faith to the God of Israel”, saying it “made Rahab, in the eyes of more than one Church Father, a figure of the Gentile Church, saved by her faith.”

I find this footnote emblematic of the role of Christianity in propagating among Gentiles the Israelites’ outrageous metaphysical claim, that great deception that has remained, to this day, a source of tremendous symbolic power. By recognizing her own image in the prostitute of Jericho, the Church claims for herself the role that is exactly hers in history, while radically misleading Christians about the historical significance of that role. It is indeed the Church who, having acknowledged the god of Israel as the universal God, introduced the Jews into the heart of the Gentile city and, over the centuries, allowed them to seize power over Christendom.

This thesis, which I am going to develop here, may seem fanciful, because we have been taught that Christianity was strongly Judeophobic from the start. And that’s true. For example, John Chrysostom, perhaps the most influential Greek theologian of the crucial 4th century, wrote several homilies “Against the Jews”. But what he is concerned about, precisely, is the nefarious influence of the Jews over Christians. Many Christians, he complains, “join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts” and even believe that “they think as we do” (First homily, I,5).

“Is it not strange that those who worship the Crucified keep common festival with those who crucified him? Is it not a sign of folly and the worst madness? […] For when they see that you, who worship the Christ whom they crucified, are reverently following their rituals, how can they fail to think that the rites they have performed are the best and that our ceremonies are worthless?” (First Homily, V,1-7).

To John’s horror, some Christians even get circumcised. “Do not tell me,” he warns them, “that circumcision is just a single command; it is that very command which imposes on you the entire yoke of the Law” (Second Homily, II,4). And so, with all its Judeophobia (anachronistically renamed “anti-Semitism” today), John Chrysostom’s homilies are a testimony to the strong influence that Jews have exerted on Gentile Christians in the early days of the triumphant, imperial Church. And no matter how much the Greek and Latin Fathers have tried to protect their flock from the influence of Jews, it has persisted as the Church expanded. It can even be argued that the history of Christianity is the history of its Judaization, from Constantinople to Rome, then from Rome to Amsterdam and to the New World.

We commonly admit that the Church has always oppressed the Jews and prevented their integration unless they convert. Were they not expelled from one Christian kingdom after another in the Middle Ages? Again, this is true, but we must distinguish between the cause and the effect. Each of these expulsions has been a reaction to a situation unknown in pre-Christian Antiquity: Jewish communities gaining inordinate economic power, under the protection of a royal administration (Jews served as the kings’ tax collectors and moneylenders, and were particularly indispensable in times of war), until this economic power, yielding political power, reaches a point of saturation, causes pogroms and forces the king into taking measures.

Let us consider for example the influence of the Jews in Western Europe under the Carolingians. It reaches a climax under Charlemagne’s son, Louis the Pious. The bishop of Lyon Agobard (c. 769-840) left us five letters or treatises written to protest against the power granted to the Jews at the detriment of Christians. In On the insolence of the Jews, addressed to Louis the Pious in 826, Agobard complains that the Jews produce “signed ordinances of your name with golden seals” guaranteeing them outrageous advantages, and that the envoys of the Emperor are “terrible towards Christians and gentle towards Jews.” Agobard even complains of an imperial edict imposing Sunday rather than Saturday as market day, in order to please the Jews. In another letter, he complains of an edict forbidding anyone to baptize the slaves of the Jews without the permission of their masters.[1]

Louis the Pious was said to be under the influence of his wife, Queen Judith—a name that simply means “Jewess”. She was so friendly to Jews that the Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz hypothesizes that she was a secret Jewess, in the manner of the biblical Esther. Graetz describes the reign of Louis and Judith (and “the treasurer Bernhard, the real ruler of the kingdom” according to him) as a golden age for the Jews, and points out that in the emperor’s court, many regarded Judaism as the true religion. This is illustrated by the resounding conversion of Louis’ confessor, Bishop Bodo, who took the name of Eleazar, had himself circumcised, and married a Jewess. “Cultured Christians,” writes Graetz, “refreshed themselves with the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Jewish philosopher Philo, and read their works in preference to those of the apostles.”[2] The Judaization of the Roman Church at this time is appropriately symbolized by the adoption of unleavened bread for communion, with no justification in the Gospel. I say “the Roman Church”, but perhaps it should be called the Frankish Church because, from the time of Charlemagne, it was taken over by ethnic Franks with geopolitical designs on Byzantium, as Orthodox theologian John Romanides has convincingly argued.[3]

The Old Testament was especially influential in the Frankish spheres of power. Popular piety focused on the Gospel narratives (canonical gospels, but also apocryphal ones like the immensely popular Gospel of Nicodemus), the worship of Mary, and the ubiquitous cults of the saints, but kings and popes relied on a political theology drawn from the Tanakh. The Hebrew Bible had been a major part of Frankish propaganda from the late sixth century. Gregory of Tours’ History of the Franks, the primary—and mostly legendary—source for Merovingian history, is framed on the providential ideology of the Books of Kings: the good kings are those who support the Catholic Church, and the bad kings those who resist the growth of its power. Under Louis the Pious, the rite of anointment of the Frankish kings was designed after the model of the prophet Samuel’s anointment of King David in 1Samuel 16.

The Old Testament as Israel’s Trojan Horse

In pre-Christian times, pagan scholars had shown little interest in the Hebrew Bible. Jewish writers (Aristobulus of Paneas, Artapan of Alexandria) had tried to bluff the Greeks on the antiquity of the Torah, claiming that Homer, Hesiod, Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato had been inspired by Moses, but no one before the Church Fathers seems to have taken them seriously. Jews had even produced fake Greek prophecies of their success under the title Sibylline Oracles, and written under a Greek pseudonym a Letter of Aristea to Philocrates praising Judaism, but again, it was not until the triumph of Christianity that these texts were met with Gentile gullibility.

Thanks to Christianity, the Jewish Tanakh was elevated to the status of authoritative history, and Jewish authors writing for pagans, such as Josephus and Philo, gained undeserved reputation—while being ignored by rabbinic Judaism. Christian academia uncritically tuned to the rigged history of the Jews. While Herodotus had crossed Syria-Palestine around 450 BCE without hearing about Judeans or Israelites, Christian historians decided that Jerusalem had been at that time the center of the world, and accepted as fact the totally fictitious empire of Solomon. Until the 19th century, world history was calibrated on a largely fanciful biblical chronology (Egyptology is now trying to recover from it).[4]

It can be argued, of course, that the Old Testament has served Christendom well: it was certainly not in the nonviolence of Christ that the Catholic Church found the energy and ideological means to impose its world order for nearly a thousand years on Western Europe. Yet for this glorious past, there was obviously a price to pay, a debt to the Jews that has to be paid one way or another. It is as if Christianity has sold its soul to the god of Israel, in exchange for its great accomplishment.

The Church has always advertised itself to the Jews as the gateway out of the prison of the Law, into the freedom of Christ. But it has never requested Jewish converts to leave their Torah on the doorstep. The Jews who entered the Church entered with their Bible, that is to say, with a big part of their Jewishness, while freeing themselves from all the civil restrictions imposed on their non-converted brethren.

When Jews were judged too slow to convert willingly, they were sometimes forced into baptism under threats of expulsion or death. The first documented case goes back to Clovis’ grandson, according to Bishop Gregory of Tours:

“King Chilperic commanded that a large number of Jews be baptized, and he himself held several on the fonts. But many were baptized only in body and not in heart; they soon returned to their deceitful habits, for they really kept the Sabbath, and pretended to honor the Sunday” (History of the Franks, chapter V).

Such collective forced conversions, producing only insincere and resentful Christians, were conducted throughout the Middle Ages. Hundreds of thousands of Spanish and Portuguese Jews were forced to convert at the end of the 15th century, before emigrating throughout Europe. Many of these “New Christians” not only continued to “Judaize” among themselves, but could now have greater influence on the “Old Christians”. The penetration of the Jewish spirit into the Roman Church, under the influence of these reluctantly converted Jews and their descendants, is a much more massive phenomenon than is generally admitted.

One case in point is the Jesuit Order, whose foundation coincided with the peak of the Spanish repression against Marranos, with the 1547 “purity-of-blood” legislation issued by the Archbishop of Toledo and Inquisitor General of Spain. Of the seven founding members, four at least were of Jewish ancestry. The case of Loyola himself is unclear, but he was noted for his strong philo-Semitism. Robert Markys has demonstrated, in a groundbreaking study (free download here, review here), how crypto-Jews infiltrated key positions in the Jesuit Order from its very beginning, resorting to nepotism in order to eventually establish a monopoly on top positions that extended to the Vatican. King Phillip II of Spain called the Order a “Synagogue of Hebrews.”[5]

Marranos established in the Spanish Netherlands played an important role in the Calvinist movement. According to Jewish historian Lucien Wolf,

“the Marranos in Antwerp had taken an active part in the Reformation movement, and had given up their mask of Catholicism for a not less hollow pretense of Calvinism. […] The simulation of Calvinism brought them new friends, who, like them, were enemies of Rome, Spain and the Inquisition. […] Moreover, it was a form of Christianity which came nearer to their own simple Judaism.”[6]

Calvin himself had learned Hebrew from rabbis and heaped praise on the Jewish people. He wrote in his commentary on Psalm 119: “Where did Our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles draw their doctrine, if not Moses? And when we peel off all the layers, we find that the Gospel is simply an exhibition of what Moses had already said.” The Covenant of God with the Jewish people is irrevocable because “no promise of God can be undone.” That Covenant, “in its substance and truth, is so similar to ours, that we can call them one. The only difference is the order in which they were given.”[7]

Within one century, Calvinism, or Puritanism, became a dominant cultural and political force in England. Jewish historian Cecil Roth explains:

“The religious developments of the seventeenth century brought to its climax an unmistakable philo-semitic tendency in certain English circles. Puritanism represented above all a return to the Bible, and this automatically fostered a more favourable frame of mind towards the people of the Old Testament.”[8]

Some British Puritans went so far as to consider the Leviticus as still in force; they circumcised their children and scrupulously respected the Sabbath. Under Charles I (1625–1649), wrote Isaac d’Israeli (father of Benjamin Disraeli), “it seemed that religion chiefly consisted of Sabbatarian rigours; and that a British senate had been transformed into a company of Hebrew Rabbis.”[9] Wealthy Jews started to marry their daughters into the British aristocracy, to the extent that, according to Hilaire Belloc’s estimate, “with the opening of the twentieth century those of the great territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood were the exception.”[10]

The influence of Puritanism on many aspects of British society naturally extended to the United States. The national mythology of the “Pilgrim Fathers” fleeing Egypt (Anglican England) and settling into the Promised Land as the new chosen people, sets the tone. However, the Judaization of American Christianity has not been a spontaneous process from within, but rather one controlled by skillful manipulations from outside. For the 19th century, a good example is the Scofield Reference Bible, published in 1909 by Oxford University Press, under the sponsorship of Samuel Untermeyer, a Wall Street lawyer, Federal Reserve co-founder, and devoted Zionist, who would become the herald of the “holy war” against Germany in 1933. The Scofield Bible is loaded with highly tendentious footnotes. For example, Yahweh’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 gets a two-thirds-page footnote explaining that “God made an unconditional promise of blessings through Abram’s seed to the nation of Israel to inherit a specific territory forever” (although Jacob, who first received the name Israel, was not yet born”. The same note explains that “Both O.T. and N.T. are full of post-Sinaitic promises concerning Israel and the land which is to be Israel’s everlasting possession,” accompanied by “a curse laid upon those who persecute the Jews,” or “commit the sin of anti-Semitism.”[11]

As a result of this kind of gross propaganda, most American Evangelicals regard the creation of Israel in 1948 and its military victory in 1967 as miracles fulfilling biblical prophecies and heralding the second coming of Christ. Jerry Falwell declared, “Right at the very top of our priorities must be an unswerving commitment and devotion to the state of Israel,” while Pat Robertson said “The future of this Nation [America] may be at stake, because God will bless those that bless Israel.” As for John Hagee, chairman of Christians United for Israel, he once declared: “The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West.”[12]

Gullible Christians not only see God’s hand whenever Israel advances in its self-prophesized destiny of world domination, but are ready to see Israeli leaders themselves as prophets when they announce their own false-flag crimes: Michael Evans, author of American Prophecies, believes that Isser Harel, founder of Israeli secret services, had a prophetic inspiration when, in 1980, he predicted that Islamic terrorists would hit the Twin Towers. in 2006 to have prophesized 9/11 in 1995. To the less gullible, this tells a lot about the Jewish gift of prophecy.

Christians’ learned helplessness

It is beyond question that Christianity played a major role in the creation of Israel, and continues to play a major role in securing American and European support for its criminal enterprises. This has nothing to do with Jesus’ teaching or the example he set with his life and death, of course. Rather, this was due to the Od Testament, Israel’s Trojan Horse inside Christianity. By recognizing the Jews’ special status as the people of the Old Testament, Christians have granted them an extraordinary symbolic power that no other ethnic community can compete with.

For two thousand years, Christianity has taught Gentiles to consent to the delusional claim of the Jews to divine election: are they not the first and only ethnic group whom the God of the universe has addressed personally, the people whom He has loved to the point of exterminating its enemies? It matters not that Christians tell the Jews that they have lost the election because they rejected Christ: the main price is theirs. To accept the biblical notion of “chosen people”, whatever the reservations, is to accept the metaphysical superiority of the Jews. If Christ is Israel’s Messiah, then truly, “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22).

We are experiencing today the final consequences of this submission, which the peoples of Antiquity could never have imagined in their worst nightmares. The exalted status of the Jews and of their “holy history” is the deeper reason for their influence on the affairs of the world. By accepting the triple biblical paradigm—Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land—, Christian Churches, Catholic and Protestant in particular, have become complicit with the imperialistic project of the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, there will be no definitive emancipation from Zion without mental and moral emancipation from the biblical matrix.

When reading the Book of Joshua, a Christian is supposed to approve, as a matter of principle, the extermination of the inhabitants of the cities of Canaan and the stealing of their land, since it was ordained by God. The editors of my Bible de Jérusalemexplain in a footnote to chapter 3:

“Joshua was considered by the Fathers as a figure of his namesake Jesus [their names are identical in Hebrew], and the Jordanian passage as a figure of Christian baptism.”

How can Joshua be a figure of Jesus? What has Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount to do with Joshua’s bloodthirsty fanatism? How can the god of Joshua be the Father of Christ? A crippling cognitive dissonance has seized Christian peoples, causing a chronic inability to think intelligently about the divine, and to see and resist the violence of Israel. We can also compare the Christian world to a son who has been lied to all his life about his real father, and, on top of that, told that his father was a war criminal, when in fact he is the son of a loving father. The neurotic ailments that genealogical lies and secrets may cause over several generations, though largely mysterious, have been well documented in the last fifty years (particularly by French psychogenealogists), and I believe such considerations, applied to the usurpation of our Heavenly Parent’s identity by the psychopathic Yahweh, are relevant to the psychology of nations.

As a matter of principle, the Christian is supposed to approve Yahweh’s sentence on those who ate with the Moabites and took wives among them: “Yahweh said to Moses, ‘Take all the leaders of the people. Impale them facing the sun, for Yahweh, to deflect his burning anger from Israel’” (Numbers 25:4). But then, why blame the Jerusalem priestly cast for sending Jesus to the torture? Explain to me in which way they were unfaithful to the Torah! Not to mention, of course, the inherent contradiction in blaming them for the Cross since, according to the Gospel, “the Son of man was destined to suffer grievously, and to be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and to be put to death, and after three days to rise again” (Mark 8:31).

The sanctification of Yahweh’s bloody leadership during the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan has made Gentiles incapable of understanding the historical foundation of Jewishness, and helpless in the face of its intrinsic violence today. It has created a blind spot in Christians’ mind: they may see the effects of Zion’s evil power, but not its cause, falsely assuming that the moral corruption they see in Jews comes from the Talmud and the Kabbalah.

Christians cannot even see the Jewish plan for world domination that is written in plain language, right under their nose. If the Jewish Tanakh had not become the Christians’ Holy Book, it would have been exposed as the proof for Israel’s racist and supremacist ambitions long ago. But when it comes to the Old Testament, Christians are seized by a severe reading disorder: when the book says “Israel will conquer the world”, they read “the Church will convert the world”.

If the “Jewish question” is about the inordinate power of Israeli elite networks within nations, then the Jewish question is also a Christian question: it is about the built-in vulnerability of Christian societies to this power. Deep down, anyone who grew up a Christian knows that the chosen people will have the last word, because if Yahweh is God, his promise is eternal, as he himself declares, in his inimitable style: “By my own self I swear it; what comes from my mouth is saving justice, it is an irrevocable word” (Isaiah 45:23). One can even speak of Christians’ “learned helplessness” in front of Jewish power, since they are taught in their Scriptures that God has always guided Israel’s merciless slaughter of his enemies—no need for Scofield’s footnotes to know that. There is also learned helplessness in having as ultimate model a man crucified by the Jews: how can the “imitation of Christ” save us from the high priests’ power to lobby and corrupt Pilatus?

The Judeo-Babylonian metaphysical hoax makes God not just ridiculously anthropomorphic, but Judeomorphic. To be fooled by it is to mistake the Creator of the Universe for a topical demon rumbling and spitting fire from a Midianite volcano (Exodus 19), adopted as tutelary deity by a confederation of Semitic nomadic tribes craving for a piece of the Fertile Crescent. It is to internalize an extremely primitive and unspiritual image of the divine that is obstructive of sound metaphysical thinking: the divorce between philosophy (the love of Wisdom) and theology (the science of God) is one manifestation of this cognitive dissonance in Western thought. In the final analysis, the jealous Yahweh, destroyer of all pantheons, is so unconvincing in the garb of the Great universal God that he is fated to be discarded in his turn. Atheism is the end result of biblical monotheism: it is the rejection of the biblical God, mistaken for the true God. “If Yahweh is God, no thanks” has been the simple rationale for atheism in Christendom since the Enlightenment: Voltaire, for example, scorned Christianity by quoting the Old Testament. Yahweh has ruined faith in a divine Creator.

How Christianity reinforced Jewish alienation

Also to consider is the effect that the Christian sanctification of the Jewish Tanakh has had on Jews themselves. It has discouraged Jews from questioning their scriptures and freeing themselves from their psychopathic god. Any Jew who questioned the divine inspiration of the Torah was not only banned from his community, but found no shelter among Christians: this happened to Baruch Spinoza and many others. For two thousand years, Christians have prayed that the Jews would open their heart to Christ, but they have done nothing to free them from Yahweh.

Critics of Jews in pagan Antiquity had a simple logic: although Jews were considered an ethnos, it was commonly admitted that their misanthropy was due to their religion. It was the fault of Moses, who had taught them to scorn the gods and the traditions of others. Hecataeus of Abdera gives in his Aegyptiaca (around 300 BCE) an alternative version of the Exodus: to appease their gods during a plague, the Egyptians expelled from their lands the many tribes of migrants (those known in Acadian as habirus), and some of them settled in Judea under the conduct of their leader Moses who, “because of their expulsion, […] introduced a kind of misanthropic and inhospitable way of life”.[14] The Roman historian Tacitus tells a similar story and also attributes to Moses the introduction of “new religious practices, quite opposed to those of all other religions. The Jews regard as profane all that we hold sacred; on the other hand, they permit all that we abhor” (Tacitus, Histories V,3-5). Plutarch reports in his treatise on Isis and Osiris that some Egyptians believed the god of the Jews to be Seth, the murderer of Osiris, exiled by the council of the gods in the desert from where he periodically returns to bring famine and discord. This opinion was so widespread in the Greco-Roman world that many people believed that the Jews worshiped in their Temple the golden head of a donkey, symbol of Seth in the divine bestiary of Egypt. The Roman general Pompey is reported to have been surprised not to find this famous donkey head when he entered the Holy of Holies in 63 BCE.

Everything was simple, then: the Jews were not racially, but religiously degenerate. But the Christian Fathers, who held that only the Jews had worshiped the true God before the coming of Jesus Christ, had to elaborate a sophisticated explanation for the Jews’ asocial behavior, one which is so self-contradicting that its message to the Jews amounts to a “double bind”: on the one hand, the Jews are told that their Yahweh is the true God and that their Bible is holy, but on the other hand, they are criticized for behaviors they have learned precisely from Yahweh in their Bible. They are accused of plotting to rule the world, although it is the very promise that Yahweh made to them: “Yahweh your God will raise you higher than every other nation in the world” (Deuteronomy 28:1). They are blamed for their materialism and their greed, but that also they learned from Yahweh, who dreams only of plunder: “I shall shake all the nations, and the treasures of all the nations will flow in” (Haggai 2:7).

Above all, they are rebuked for their separatism, although this is the very essence of Yahweh’s message to them: “I shall set you apart from all these peoples, for you to be mine” (Leviticus 20:26). Jews who want to break away from Jewish separatism deserve death, according to the lesson of the Bible. The Church Fathers have repeated Yahweh’s endless complaint against his people’s irrepressible tendency to compromise themselves with the gods of the nations by oaths, shared meals or—abomination of the abomination—marriages. But are not these “stiff-necked Jews” who rebelled against the tyrannical yoke of the Levites, precisely those who sought to extricate themselves from the Jewish alienation by assimilating into the surrounding civilization? Were they not doing exactly what we would like them to do today? The contradiction is in many Christian writings. John Chrysostom, for example, writes in his First Homily Against the Jews (II,3):

“Nothing is more miserable than those people who never failed to attack their own salvation. When there was need to observe the Law, they trampled it under foot. Now that the Law has ceased to bind, they obstinately strive to observe it. What could be more pitiable that those who provoke God not only by transgressing the Law but also by keeping it?”

This amounts to telling the Jews: “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” Christians accuse them of having rebelled against Yahweh yesterday, and they accuse them of obeying Yahweh today, under the pretext that Yahweh’s orders no longer stand. How unconvincing to the Jews!

Anti-Yahwism is the only effective criticism of Israel because it is the only fair criticism. It cuts short the accusation of anti-Semitism, since it aims at liberating the Jews from the sociopathic god who has taken control of their destiny—and who is, of course, only the puppet of the Levites. A manifesto of anti-yahwism might begin with this statement by Samuel Roth from his book Jews Must Live:

“Beginning with the Lord God of Israel Himself, it was the successive leaders of Israel who one by one foregathered and guided the tragic career of the Jews—tragic to the Jews and no less tragic to the neighboring nations who have suffered them. […] despite our faults, we would never have done so much damage to the world if it had not been for our genius for evil leadership.”[15]

Zionist pioneer Leo Pinsker wrote in his booklet Auto-Emancipation (1882), that the Jews are “the people chosen for universal hatred.” They are indeed, but not because Gentiles are universally affected by a “psychic aberration,” a “variety of demonopathy” known as Judeophobia, as Pinsker believes, but rather because their covenant with Yahweh has programmed them to be hated wherever they go.[16]

It’s time to tell the Jews what Christians have been unable to tell them: You were never chosen by God. You have just been misled by your Levites to take your vindictive tribal god for the universal Father in Heaven. This cognitive short-circuit has caused in your collective psyche a grave narcissistic personality disorder. For our own misfortune, we Gentiles have been fooled by your self-delusion and have fallen, too, under the psychopathic bond of your leaders. But we are now waking up, and as soon as we recover our senses and our dignity, we’ll help you out of it too.

Christianity as controlled opposition

“Inside every Christian is a Jew,” stated Pope Francis. That is the simplest and the deepest truth about Christianity. Most Christians are not aware of this Jew inside them, yet he commands a large part of their worldview. Meditating on this truth can be a mind-opening experience, radiating in a multiplicity of questions. Should we use Sigmund Freud’s concept of “projection” and say that most Christians who hate Jews hate the Jew inside them? Or is this Jew a self-hating Jew, like every Jew according to Theodor Lessing (Jewish Self-Hatred, Berlin, 1930)? Perhaps inside every Christian are two Jews, one hating the other, Moses and Jesus. From whichever side we want to look at it, the fact is that Christians are, by New Testament definition, the spiritual heirs of Yahweh’s promise to Israel. They are new branches grafted onto the trunk of Israel, according to Paul’s metaphor (Romans 11:16-24).

What still needs to be explained is how Paul and his followers succeeded in convincing tens of thousands of Gentiles to become a new synthetic Israel, at a time when the very name of Israel was hated all around the Mediterranean Sea? How is it that the Christian religion, which would convert the Roman Empire to the worship of a Jewish Messiah, was born at the time when the biggest wave of Judeophobia was sweeping across the Empire? To answer that question, let’s examine the context. At the turn of the millennium, during the prosperous reign of Augustus, Jews had gained advantageous situations in many parts of the Empire. They enjoyed freedom of cult and judicial autonomy, and were exempted from the civil formality of emperor worship, from all obligations on the Sabbath, and from military service. Moreover, they were allowed to collect funds and send them to the Jerusalem Temple bureaucracy.[17]

As Jews abused of their privileges and conspired to increase them, Gentile resentment grew and anti-Jewish riots followed. In the year 38 CE, the Greeks of Alexandria sent a delegation to Rome, whose leader Isidoros complained that the Jews are “trying to stir up the entire world.”[18] The emperor issued an edict declaring that, if the Jews continued to sow dissent and “to agitate for more privileges than they formerly possessed, […] I will by all means take vengeance on them as fomenters of what is a general plague infecting the whole world.” This edict was followed by another addressed to all the Jewish communities of the empire, asking them not to “behave with contempt towards the gods of other peoples.”[19]

Tensions were high in Jerusalem, where the pro-Roman Herodian dynasty faltered. It was at this time that a conspiracy of Pharisees and Sadducees denounced Jesus to the Romans as a seditious would-be king of the Jews, calculating, according to the Fourth Gospel, that “it is to [the Jews’] advantage that one man should die for the people, rather than that the whole nation should perish” (John 11:50). Flavius ​​Josephus mentions several Jewish revolts in the same period, including one during the Passover of 48 or 49 CE, after a Roman soldier assigned to the entrance of the Temple committed the irreparable: “raising his robe, he stooped in an indecent attitude, so as to turn his backside to the Jews, and made a noise in keeping with this posture.”[20] In 66 the Jewish War broke out, when the Sadducees defied Roman power by banning from the Temple the daily sacrifices offered in the name and at the expense of the Emperor. After the destruction of the Temple by the general and future emperor Titus in 70, the embers of Jewish messianism continued to hatch for 70 more years, and ignited Palestine for the last time with the revolt of Simon Bar Kochba, which provoked in retaliation the complete destruction of Jerusalem, its conversion into a Roman city renamed Aelia Capitolina, and the banning of Jews from it. By then, enmity against the Jews had reached a climax throughout the Empire.

This is precisely the time when Christian missionaries spread the cult of Christ in all the major urban centers of the Empire, starting with those inhabited by large Jewish communities, such as Antioch, Ephesus and Alexandria. A reasonable explanation for that synchronicity is that Christianity, in its Pauline version, is a fundamentally Judeophobic religion that surfed on the greatest wave of Judeophobia. As the cult of a demi-god victim of the Jews, it satisfied the general perception of Jews as a “race hated by the gods” (Tacitus, Histories V.3). But that explanation fails to account for the fact that the triumphant Judeophobic religion is not a pagan religion, but the fundamentally Jewish cult of a Jewish Messiah allegedly fulfilling Jewish prophecies. What we have here is a bizarre case of Hegelian dialectic, one in which the “antithesis” is controlled by the “thesis” and absorbed into it.

Through Christianity, Roman Judeophobia became Judaized. The Gospel narrative makes the Jews the plotters against the Son of God, but this Son of God is a Jew, and soon the “Mother of God”—as Isis, Ishtar or Artemis were called—would be turned into a Jewess too. Most importantly, Judeophobic Christians will adopt the Tanakh and the bizarre Jewish paradigm of the “jealous god” with his “chosen people”. From that point of view, it is as if Christ nailed on the Cross had been used as a bait to pull anti-Jewish Gentiles, by the line of the Old Testament, into worshipping Jewishness.

This process fits the concept of Jewish controlled opposition conceptualized by Gilad Atzmon in his book Being in Time and in a recent video. Whenever Jewish power becomes threatened by the Gentiles’ resentment against it, it produces “a satellite Jewish dissent” designed to control and stir Gentile opposition. This Jewish dissent monopolizes the protest and keeps non-Jewish dissenters in line. According to a parable proposed by Atzmon, the purpose is to make sure that any Jewish problem suffered by the Gentiles is treated by Jewish doctors, whose fundamental interest is that the problem is not solved. By claiming to have the solution to the problem, dissident Jews deceive Gentiles on the nature of the problem, and ultimately aggravate the problem.

As Atzmon sees it, the process does not necessarily result from a secret agreement between Jewish power and Jewish dissent. The Jewish opposition intellectuals

“are not necessarily consciously deceiving us; indeed, they may well be doing their best, within the context of a limited tribal mindset. The truth is, they cannot think out of the box, they cannot climb over the ghetto walls that enclose their own tribal beings.”[21]

We can see this tribal mindset as a collective instinct of conservation that is part of the essence of Jewishness. Ideological quarrels between Jews are sincere, but they remain quarrels between Jews, who tacitly agree to speak louder than Gentiles and exclude from the discussion any radical criticism of Jewishness.

In the light of Atzmon’s analysis, it is conceivable that Christianity’s primary function was to absorb Greco-Roman Judeophobia into a movement that would ultimately reinforce the symbolic status of the Jews, by spreading the “chosen people” propaganda myth fabricated five centuries earlier. Ezra had convinced the Persians that the Jews worshipped the God of Heaven like them; the Church went on convincing the Romans that, before Jesus, the Jews had been the only people worshipping the true God and loved by Him. Such creed from the Gentiles is worth a thousand Balfour declarations, in the march toward world domination by way of deception. In the Christian narrative that says, “God chose the Jewish people, but then rejected them,” the benefit from the first part is much higher than the cost of the second, which hardly makes sense anyway.

If the Italian rabbi Elijah Benamozegh is right in saying that “The constitution of a universal religion is the ultimate goal of Judaism,” then Christianity is a great step toward that glorious future: “In Heaven, one God of all men, and on earth a single family of peoples, among whom Israel is the eldest, responsible for the priestly function of teaching and the administration of the true religion of humanity.”[22]Christianity has prepared the way for the next stage: the cult of the crucified Jew is now being superseded by the cult of the exterminated Jews.

Christianity without the Old Testament?

In the second century of our era, Marcion of Sinope had asserted the incompatibility of the Hebrew Bible and the Gospel: Yahweh cannot be the Father of Christ, he said, because everything opposes them. The covenants of Moses and Christ are so contrary in their terms that they must have been sealed with deities totally alien to each other. According to the German specialist Adolf von Harnack, it was Marcion who founded the first structured church, established the first Christian canon, to which he first gave the name of evangelion. In the early 3rd century, his doctrine “has invaded the whole earth,” complained Tertullian, who was from the Semitic city of Carthage, as was Augustine and other Latin Fathers who emphasized the Jewish roots of Christianity.[23] Had Marcionism prevailed, Christianity would have broken with Judaism, which might have withered in a few centuries.[24] Islam would never have happened. On the other hand, perhaps Christianity itself would not have prevailed, and would be remembered today as just another transient otherworldly oriental religion, along with its Manichean cousin.

Can we really separate the New Testament from the Old anyway? We are told that Marcion’s canon consisted of Paul’s letters and a short version of Luke, but it is hard to imagine how he could have completely sanitized the later from its 68 references and allusions to the Old Testament. Admittedly, the original Gospels contained less Old Testament items than it does today: for example, Mark’s only apocalyptic passage (in chapter 13), a condensation of apocalyptic imagery from the books of Daniel, Isaiah, and Ezekiel, was a secondary addition. Many scholars even consider all of Jesus’s apocalyptic prophecies in Matthew and Luke as foreign to Jesus’s original message, and some regard the bulk of the Book of Revelation (from 4:1 to 22:15), which refers neither to Jesus nor to any identifiable Christian theme, as a Jewish book framed between a Christian prologue and epilogue.[25]

Alternate history is fun, but quite pointless. Christianity came to us with the Old Testament and a heavily Judaized New Testament. The fruit came with the worm, whose name is Yahweh. The question is: what can we expect from Christianity today? From the viewpoint I have adopted here, it seems that Christianity cannot be the solution to the problem it has created. Yet, like many readers, I rejoice at the rebirth of the Russian Church, and its role in fostering a healthy public morality and reviving national dignity. In fact, I can even imagine that the Catholic Church could resurrect from its ashes if only it humbly came back to its Orthodox mother whom it has conspired to destroy throughout the Middle Ages. Orthodox Christianity is the closest to the original, and by far the least Judaized. Persecuted during seventy years of communism, it is certainly not much infiltrated by crypto-Jews, at the moment. But can it overcome the inherent problem that I have highlighted here? Can it ever challenge the Jews’ megalomaniac and narcissistic claim of their metaphysical exceptionality? A radically critical approach of the Old Testament is, I believe, an indispensable component of Gentiles’ mental emancipation and recovery of their natural defense mechanism against the Yahweh-Zion matrix. Theologians should, at the very least, be allowed to say that Yahweh is a grossly distorted Judeomorphic image of God. Islam has an advantage here, since Muslims have always admitted that the Jewish Tanakh is fraudulent. Not that I see Islam as a solution, far from it, but a consensus between Muslims and Orthodox Christians on the problematic nature of the Hebrew Scriptures could be a first step toward emancipation.

It is important also not to overrate the influence of these questions on popular piety. The average Christian’s faith would not be much disturbed if the Old Testament would cease to be read in Church, or even if it would be openly criticized. It is also important not to confuse Christendom with Christianity: Notre-Dame was not built by bishops, priests or saints, but by the people of Paris. The same can be said of every cathedral or village church. Johan Sebastian Bach was not a priest (and certainly never composed under the inspiration of the Old Testament), and neither were any of the great geniuses who built our civilization.

Finally, I have zoomed here on a problematic aspect of Christianity, but other viewpoints are possible. I have developed the antithesis to the common thesis that Christianity is anti-Jewish, but there is truth also in the thesis. Christianity is certainly not entirely Jewish: it is also profoundly pagan. Jesus’ legend is a Greek heroic myth. The cults of the Virgin Mary and of the saints are pagan traditions superficially Christianized, with no roots in the Old or New Testament. To acknowledge, accept and celebrate those pagan roots, could be a welcome development within Christianity, as a counterweight to the Old Testament burden.

But I know what you’re thinking: “Who cares what a Marcionite has to say?”

Laurent Guyénot, PhD in Medieval Studies, is the author of From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, 2018, and JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep State, Progressive Press, 2014.


[1] Adrien Bressolles, “La question juive au temps de Louis le Pieux,” in Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France, tome 28, n°113, 1942. pp. 51-64, on

[2] Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1891 (, vol. III, ch. VI, p. 162.

[3] John Romanides, Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: An Interplay Between Theology and Society, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981, on

[4] Read Gunnar Heinsohn, “The Restauration of Ancient History,” on et John Crowe, “The Revision of Ancient History – A Perspective,” on

[5] Robert A. Markys, The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews: Jesuits of Jewish Ancestry and Purity-of-Blood Laws in the Early Society of Jesus, Brill, 2009, free download on

[6] Lucien Wolf, Report on the “Marranos” or Crypto-Jews of Portugal, Anglo-Jewish Association, 1926.

[7] Vincent Schmid, “Calvin et les Juifs : Prémices du dialogue judéo-chrétien chez Jean Calvin,” 2008, on

[8] Cecil Roth, A History of the Jews in England (1941), Clarendon Press, 1964, p. 148.

[9] Isaac Disraeli, Commentaries on the Life and Reign of Charles the First, King of England, 2 vols., 1851, quoted in Archibald Maule Ramsay, The Nameless War, 1952 (

[10] Hilaire Belloc, The Jews, Constable & Co., 1922 (, p. 223.

[11] Joseph Canfield, The Incredible Scofield and His Book, Ross House Books, 2004, pp. 219–220.

[12] Jill Duchess of Hamilton, God, Guns and Israel: Britain, The First World War And The Jews in the Holy City, The History Press, 2009 , kindle, e. 414-417.

[13] Michael Evans, The American Prophecies, Terrorism and Mid-East Conflict Reveal a Nation’s Destiny, Hodder & Stoughton, 2005, quoted in Christopher Bollyn, Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World, C. Bollyn, 2012, p. 71.

[14] Peter Schäfer, Judéophobie: Attitudes à l’égard des Juifs dans le monde antique, Cerf, 2003, pp. 13-15.

[15] Samuel Roth, Jews Must Live: An Account of the Persecution of the World by Israel on All the Frontiers of Civilization, 1934, (

[16] Leon Pinsker, Auto-Emancipation: An Appeal to His People by a Russian Jew (1882), on

[17] Michael Grant, Jews in the Roman World, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2011, pp. 58–61.

[18] Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian, Princeton University Press, 1995, p. 178.

[19] Quoted in Michael Grant, Jews in the Roman World, op. cit., pp. 134–135.

[20] Flavius Josephus, Jewish War, II,224, quoted in Michael Grant, Jews in the Roman World, op. cit., p. 148.

[21] Gilad Atzmon, Being in Time: A Post-Political Manifesto, Skyscraper, 2017, p. 208.

[22] Élie Benamozegh, Israël et l’humanité (1914), Albin Michel, 1980, pp. 28–29.

[23] Adolf von Harnack, Marcion, l’évangile du Dieu étranger. Contribution à l’histoire de la fondation de l’Église catholique, Cerf, 2005 (translation from the German second edition of 1924).

[24] If we follow the logic of Peter Schäfer, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other, Princeton UP, 2012.

[25] See for example James Charlesworth, Jesus within Judaism, SPCK, 1989.

United States Planned to Gain control over Crimea to Clean-out the Russian Black Sea Fleet

Source: Dialog UA

Translated by Algora Publishing

Italian journalist Maurizio Blondet says that the events of the Ukrainian Maidan were intended to enable the United States to take control of Crimea and to kick out the Russian Black Sea Fleet.

“The coup d’etat perpetrated in Kiev in February in 2014 had a specific goal: to neutralize the Russian Black Sea Fleet based in Sevastopol and replace it with the United States Navy,” – writes Maurizio Blondet in an article published on the website

“On 22 February, the day when Yanukovych was removed from power, the American carrier strike group quickly entered the Black Sea through the Bosporus Strait. This is the fleet that was supposed to take the place of the Russian Black Sea Fleet based in Crimea. Secret Russian sources tell us just how grave a threat this was to the vital interests of Moscow, making it clear why Putin was quick to take the Crimea peninsula and declare it Russian. He had irrefutable evidence that the coup perpetrated in Kiev in February 2014 had a specific goal: to neutralize the Russian Black Sea Fleet based in Sevastopol, and replace it with a US fleet. On February 18, 2014, the Ukrainian parliament was occupied by armed activists of the “Svoboda” Party and the Right Sector. On February 22, President Yanukovych was forced to leave Kiev, as pro-Western forces took power.

The journalist also claims that the SBU head Valentyn Nalyvaychenko is a citizen of the United States.

“At the same time, Valentin Nalyvaychenko was appointed head of the Secret Services of Ukraine (SBU). Who is he? An American citizen,” – the article says.

The journalist also writes that on February 22, the day Yanukovych fled, a group of American warships entered the Black Sea.

“Of course,” on February 13, “just by chance” one of the four American naval groups, led by the aircraft carrier George Bush (CSG-2), left the naval base in Norfolk and headed for the Aegean Sea. The George H. W. Bush has a displacement of 102,000 tons; it has 90 fixed wing aircraft and helicopters on board. It is accompanied by 16 warships, including the cruiser USS Philippine Sea, the destroyers Truxtun and Roosevelt, and three nuclear submarines. February 22, the day when Yanukovych was removed from power, the American carrier strike group quickly entered the Black Sea through the Bosporus Strait. This was a direct violation of the Treaty of Montreux (1936), which only permits warships up to 45,000 tons to pass through the Dardanelles. But, as reported by the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet, citing a source from the Ministry of War in Turkey, authorities secretly gave permission for the passage of the valiant American fleet. This was fleet that was intended to take the place of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the naval bases of Crimea. Of course, it was expected that the Crimea would “choose democracy” and would be happy to greet the stars and stripes navy. However, crowds of people took to the streets of Sevastopol, and in a couple of days, the siege of the Parliament of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea drove out Prime Minister Anatoly Mogilev, who had declared his loyalty to the putschists in Kiev (despite the fact that he had bought his position from Yanukovych, having given him a luxury villa in Yalta). Sergei Aksenov, leader of the pro-Russian forces, was chosen in place of Mogilev.

“On 6 March, the parliament of an autonomous Crimea declared its refusal to submit to Kiev and its intention to hold a referendum on March 16 on the reunification of the Crimea with the Russian motherland. That messed up the American plans,” – writes Italian journalist.

According to Maurizio Blondet, after this the initial order received by the aircraft carrier was canceled and they headed off in the direction of Turkey.

“On March 5, the initial instruction received by the aircraft carrier was canceled. They were given a new order – to go from the Greek city of Piraeus to Antalya, to go to the Turkish naval base and wait there. Only the destroyers USS Truxtun, USS Donald Cook and the frigate USS Taylor were sent to explore the shores of Northern Crimea from 7 to 22 March under the pretext of joint exercises with Bulgaria and Romania. The Russian Air Force announced through the media that the USS Donald Cook had come to disrupt the antennas associated with the Space Center for the Black Sea fleet and a network of ELINT military satellites working in the electromagnetic spectrum. This sophisticated modern system allows Crimea to receive data from the electronic surveillance radar and navigation systems of the American Navy, the onboard aircraft, and launch vehicles. Russian military planes had to block this action by the Cook. Two Su-24MRs circled the American ship eleven times (!) at the lowest possible altitude, using an onboard blocking system at frequencies of 12-18 Hz to neutralize the US cruiser radar. In addition, the Russian special services were sure that six commando groups, of 16 people each, were ready to swim underwater, undetected, to the coast in order to carry out acts of sabotage in the Crimea and create an atmosphere of panic among the local population. Such actions might include explosions on public transportation during rush hour, undermining government buildings, etc. Injecting fear and terror on the eve of the referendum would mean fewer people would go out to vote, so the results would be invalidated. To prevent such actions, “Russian exercised a strong, tight control.” In fact, one of the Crimean websites ran a story about the capture of some commandos from NATO countries, as was also indicated by the fact that Natalia Poklonskaya, the Prosecutor General of Crimea, had urgently requested translators from the language of one of the NATO countries that bordered on Ukraine and had access to the sea. In our understanding, the references to a “treacherous neighbor” meant Romania.

The journalist says that after the Crimean referendum, the U.S. fleet found that its orders had been rescinded.

“Based on the results of the referendum in Crimea (83% of the total population voted, and 99.7% of those who voted opted for Russia), the American fleet led by the aircraft carrier George Bush was ordered to cut short its mission, left the Aegean Sea and went to Bahrain. Everyone understands that the Russian military base in Sevastopol is of the utmost importance. In confirmation of this, we see the recent modernization of the Black Sea Fleet, which increased its line-up to 20 modern ships, including six submarines, and missile carrier frigates specializing in defense and in blocking the enemy in the electronic field, as well as the newest Mistral class helicopters, built in a French shipyard. The Navy has a large group of rapid response troops consisting of paratroopers and marines. They are supported by the fourth division and air defense. In addition they have a separate air cargo fleet, consisting of 135 aircraft of the AN-22, AN-124, Il-76MD and An-12 classes, that can transport 80,000 soldiers of the 49th and 58th military corps. This is a rapid reaction force, directly subordinate to the Black Sea Fleet, and it has a single goal – to protect against terrorism in the Mediterranean basin, East Africa and the Middle East up to the Persian Gulf. But even more important is the invisible, or almost invisible, part of the fleet. This is the Center for Space Flight Management, which has been in existence since Soviet times. Its history includes launching the Salyut, Soyuz, Apollo-Soyuz and moon rover spaceships. Today the Space Center receives data from radar-missile systems of the Voronezh-M type (within 6,000 km.), in Lekhtusi village in the Leningrad region, in Pionersk, in the Kaliningrad region, and in the city of Armavir. The center receives information from satellite-based early warning systems (ILCs / K, capable of detecting missile launches of any type – cruise as well as ballistic). Since this center is a serious obstacle to U.S. hegemony and expansion towards Central Asia, damaging this system or completely destroying it is one of the Pentagon’s main goals.

At the end of the article, Maurizio Blondet draws the following conclusion: “Based on the foregoing, it seems to us that a coup d’etat in Kiev to bring to power a “democratic” puppet government had as its primary objective the elimination of the Space Center. Ukraine’s entry into NATO was a distinctly secondary objective. With the help of the Ukrainian presidential elections and the strengthening of the “democratic” government, the Pentagon hoped to force Putin to abandon the military base in the Crimea in order to make it later into an American base. But in their haste the Americans made a mistake. Thinking they had the situation under control, they launched a whole squadron of reconnaissance drones in Dnepropetrovsk prematurely. Those drone flights over the territory of Crimea on the eve of the referendum were open to the Russian side, who were able to listen in on the plans of the United States. ”

MISSING: Guaido Now In Hiding ADMITS COUP A FAILURE, Blames Military’s Loyalty To Maduro

CARACAS – According to Juan Guaido, who is missing and apparently in hiding, the attempt to overthrow Nicolas Maduro failed due to the lack of support for the opposition from the Venezuelan military, which they had counted on.

Guaido made these remarks in an interview with the Atlanticist newspaper The Washington Post from an undisclosed location.

[Editor’s note: The Washington Post is one of the daily news outlets of the NATO media-intelligence network around the Atlantic Council. The Washington Post working in tandem with the NSA and CIA, has published hit-pieces against FRN, defaming the coverage as ‘Fake News’. The Atlantic Council developed a Nazi-apologist media watchdog project in Ukraine known as ‘Prop-or-Not’, in which FRN was featured in the top dozen of ‘offending’ fake news sites in a list that numbered about a hundred, which was published in tandem by The Washington Post. – Flores ]

Lopez, who was freed from house-arrest during the early morning hours of the first stage of the coup attempt by a crack commando team, himself fled to the Spanish embassy, being driven there by a vehicle from the Chilean embassy.

According to him, he “was counting on the addition of presidential powers” ceded by Maduro and the subsequent “massive transition of the military to his side,” but he miscalculated and this did not happen. At the same time, Guaido did not rule out that he would accept the intervention of the United States against his country, if such a proposal came from Washington.

“Thank you for this option, we will evaluate this proposal (on the US intervention) And, perhaps, consider it in Parliament to resolve this crisis. If necessary, we may approve it,”

However, it is important to note that the Guaido was stripped of his post in the parliament he refers to, the Venezuelan National Assembly, and so it is unclear exactly what parliament he refers to in this statement. It is more than likely that this is part of reinforcing some spectacle of legitimacy, which in reality has only decreased with time.

During a telephone conversation on May 3rd, the presidents of the United States and Russia discussed the situation in Venezuela. The conversation took place at the initiative of the American side, after which Trump openly broke with Bolton and Pompeo over their assessment of the Venezuela situation. “Putin is not looking to get involved in Venezuela, but is concerned about humanitarian problems in this country,” US President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House following a conversation with Russian leader Vladimir Putin .

A missing Guaido

Following the failed coup attempt against the President of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, supporters of the opposition held demonstrations which Juan Guaido called for, but himself failed to appear at. It appears that on the balance, the Venezuelan people have reacted negatively to the recent call promoted this Saturday by the leaders of the coup to demonstrate in front of the main military barracks of the Bolivarian Republic.

The aim of this demonstration was apparently to shame the military leaders whom the U.S backed opposition were solidly going over to the side of the coup, but in the final moment were ordered by defense minister Vladimir Padrino, to stand down.

FRN earlier reported an in-depth analysis of the coup, which explained how Bolton and Abrams were ultimately misled by Padrino, that he would order troops to side with the coup. This appears to be a brilliant military-intelligence maneuver on the part of the Venezuelan authorities. The result is that all of the coup-involved military personnel were openly uncovered, and this resulted in the termination and arrest of several military personnel as well as the very head of the SEBIN Venezuelan intelligence service itself, Manuel Ricardo Cristopher Figuera.

Manuel Ricardo Cristopher Figuera

Figuera, the head of the Bolivarian Intelligence Service (SEBIN), is the highest-ranking member of the country’s security forces to break with Maduro since opposition leader Juan Guaidó called for a military uprising Tuesday morning.

In the letter, the authenticity of which was confirmed to The Associated Press by a U.S. official, Figuera wrote that while he always had been loyal to Maduro, “the time has come to seek new ways of doing politics” to try and “rebuild the country.” The letter did not mention Guaidó by name but did say that Venezuela has experienced a damaging decline.

Maduro announced subsequently that the new director of the SEBIN would be Gustavo Gonzalez Lopez.

Given that it has now been openly exposed that the very head of the Bolivarian Intelligence Service, SEBIN, itself was compromised at the top, it is likely that Gustavo Gonzalez Lopez, who nominally was relieved of duty in the same post last year, was operating secretly as the de facto head of intelligence. This would have been the case while Figuera was used to organize and collaborate with the U.S in such a way that could be contained and countered without Figuera’s own knowledge.

Minister of Defense, Vladimir Padrino, as FRN reported, was also supposed to go along with the coup, but unlike Figuera, was trusted by Maduro and Gustavo Gonzalez Lopez.

READ MORE: MAJOR: Inside How The Coup Was Foiled – Venezuela’s Army Chief Padrino TRICKED Trump & Abrams

Supporters of the Venezuelan opposition held their demonstration without Guaido on Saturday as the government security forces protected their small protest from a general public increasingly outraged at the the opposition protests which are transparently urged by the U.S. The protest was relatively small in comparison to their previous demonstrations, which was a major blow to the opposition as they were looking retain some legitimacy and save face after their failed coup.

The main objective of the call made by Juan Guaidó, which he inexplicably did not participate in, was to convince the military command to ditch President Maduro and side with him. The troops listened to the statements of the opposition and reiterated their loyalty to their homeland and President Maduro.

In a clip that has gone viral, military personnel are shown setting fire to an ‘order’ from Guaido to join the ranks of the coup army, an army which in reality failed to be realized and therefore cannot be said to have really existed.

One of the military installations visited was the Generalissimo Francisco de Miranda Airbase, better known as La Carlota, east of Caracas. The base was the main site of the April 30th coup. Despite their best effort to break into the military installation, they were unable to penetrate its walls.

During the opposition’s protest on Saturday, a much larger rally in honor of Dialogue and Rectification Day was held in Caracas. The participants held the rally in order to promote a plan to better optimize social action in coordination with the government. FRN wrote a critical, constructive piece of both Telesur’s coverage as well as the low turn-out of the April 30th counter-coup protests. At the time, it appeared that various pro-Venezuela media used stock photos of larger demonstrations to create the spectacle of a large anti-coup outpouring. While the vast majority of Venezuela’s oppose the opposition’s shift to violence and coup tactics, the April 30th pro-government mobilization at Miraflores Palace numbered no larger than the low thousands.

FRN will continue to monitor these events and report on the whereabouts of Guaido. That Venezuelan media are reporting his ‘disappearance’ is itself a psychological warfare operation that should be lauded for its utility and timeliness. This is a classic ‘order to appear’ maneuver, in which Guaido’s legitimacy rests upon his ability to show ‘proof of life’. He is therefore placed in the conundrum of answering this ‘order to appear’ by making a public to rebuild his credibility – as absence is associated with fear and shame – yet making an appearance could lead to his arrest. His other option, also bad, is to ‘remain in hiding’, which indicates a sense of guilt, culpability and a loss of strength and legitimacy in the public’s eye.

New Study Calls Into Question The History Of Israel

TEL AVIV – A new investigation into the wake of Mesha suggests that King Balak, the Moabite leader who according to the Bible tried to curse the Israelites, may have been a historical figure. This has implications in the chronology of the history of ancient Israel.

The study published in the Journal of the Institute of Archeology of the University of Tel Aviv and conducted by the archaeologist Israel Finkelstein and the historian Nadav Naaman, both from the University of Tel Aviv, together with the expert in the Bible, Thomas Romer from the University of Lausanne in France, proposes a new reading of one of the darkest sections of the Mesha Stele.

The research is based on new high-resolution images of a photograph of the Stela, taken shortly after its discovery and which, in some cases, has preserved the old letters better than the original inscription.

This is because local residents broke the stone shortly after it was found and, although most of it was assembled again, some parts are still missing. Currently, the stone is in the Louvre Museum, France.

According to previous studies, one of the names engraved on the stone was that of the House of David, royal dynasty that ruled over the Kingdom of Israel.

However, the new analysis refutes this interpretation and proposes that the name located in an unreadable fragment on line 31, is that of King Balak, rival of Mesha (who named the Stele) for the supremacy of Moab. The Moabites were a Semitic people who lived east of the Dead Sea, in present-day Jordan and who clashed several times with the people of Israel.

This study is important because it allows us to understand the territory of Judah and Moab and their expansion processes, added to the history of Jerusalem in the 9th century BC, Finkelstein explained.

In the Bible, Balak appears much earlier in the history of the Hebrews, apparently centuries before the time of Mesha.

According to the sacred scriptures, forty years after the Exodus, when the Israelites, still led by Moses, emerge from the desert on their way to the Promised Land, they pass through Moab. Scared by the great multitude, King Balak hires a prophet and seer named Balaam to curse the Hebrews.

If the new interpretation of the Mesha Stele is correct, this would mean that Balak really existed. However, it would also show that the biblical episode in which it appears is anachronistic and mythological in nature.

It would be another confirmation that the sacred text was written centuries after the alleged events it narrates and that its authors have a penchant for taking known historical figures and then projecting them at a different time and turning them into stories and parables for their own theory.

According to the researchers, by leaving aside the reading of the House of David, we discard the fact that the kingdom of Judah has conquered that of Moab, which may be significant for the ancient history of Israel.

The black basalt stone known as the wake of Mesha is a monument that was discovered 150 years ago in the desert of Transjordan. It has been an important source of information about the history of ancient Israel and has served to debate the accuracy of the Bible.

In the text, dating from the second half of the ninth century BC. C., the Moabite king Mesha boasts of defeating the Northern Kingdom of Israel and its deity, YHWH. This is the first extra biblical reference to the tetragrammaton, or YHWH, the name with which Yahweh appears in the Old Testament.

The inscription also attests to the historicity of several biblical figures, including Mesha himself (listed in 2 Kings 3: 4), as well as the Israeli king Omri and his son Ahab.

Native Americans Killed by the Anglo-Americans

Native Americans killed in service for the United States and killed defending their Indian country are listed below in rough estimated numbers. A likely total of 100,000 – 500,000 Native Americans in the U.S. have died since 1776. The high end would be around a million.

Native Americans are the have the highest mortality rate of any U.S. minority because of U.S. actions and policies.

Indians Conflicts & Removals 1776-1973 (1973)

– Wounded Knee II – 2 (1890) Wounded Knee – 178 (1864)

– Sand Creek Massacre – 200 (1862)

– Dakota War of 1862 – 38 prisoners executed (1876)

– Battle of Little Big Horn – 136 (high estimate) (1838)

– Cherokee Removal – 4,000 (1817-58)

– Seminole Wars I,II, & III – 1475 (likely as high as 10,000) (1831)

– Choctaw Removal – 2,500 (1812)

– Red Stick War of the Muscogee or Creek –3,000 (1791)

– Battle of the Wabash – 21 (1830)

– Indian Removal Act [Original data truncated; no useful data]

Estimates: Two studies have been conducted that attempt to count the natives killed by the United States.

1. The first of these was sponsored by the United States Government, and while official, it does not stand up to scrutiny and is therefore discounted (generally); this estimate shows between 1 million to 4 million killed.

2. The second study was not sponsored by the US Government but was conducted by independent researchers. This study estimated populations and population reductions using later census data. Two figures are given, both low and high: between 10 million and 114 million Indians, as a direct result of US actions.

Please note that Nazi Holocaust estimates are between 6 and 11 million; that would make the Nazi Holocaust the 2nd largest mass murder of a class of people in history. REF: <i>American Holocaust</i>: D. Stannard (Oxford Press, 1992) – “over 100 million killed” “[Christopher] Columbus personally murdered half a million Natives” <i>God, Greed and Genocide: The Holocaust Through the Centuries</i>: Grenke (New Academia Publishing 2006). <i>Holocaust: Critical Concepts in Historical Studies</i>: Cesarani, (Routledge 2004)

Thousands more, like me, being half native – they mostly killed us because they owed us land and didn’t want to give it to us, so they gave us beer … even though they owed us millions in land. My great grand parents had to hide out from the government; they had to move from place to place. They never got an education and they were on war footing because the government abused them.

Thanks to the Indian Removal Act of 1830, it was illegal for Indians to live in Georgia. They could only travel through Georgia, with proper papers. This law was not repealed until March 1980.

Officially not ‘many’ died in the Indian Wars, but murdering Red Indians was daily practice for white colonists. And this genocide was happily tolerated by the American Government and the US Army. Almost 20 million Red Indians died, say 10 per day, which should be general American knowledge.

By far the biggest killers though were smallpox, measles, influenza, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhus, bubonic plague, cholera, and scarlet fever. All imported by the Europeans.