Al-Jazeerah: Cross-Cultural Understanding
Opinion Editorials, October 2014
How Zionist Israel Uses US-EU to Dominate the World
By Henry D' SouzaAl-Jazeerah, CCUN, October 16, 2014
The Author's Note:
The following is part of a book chapter by the author. Therefore, there's no conclusion at the end. However, the content leads to the conclusion that Zionists in general, and Israelis in particular are in control of the US-EU governments, and through that they control most of the world.
Many leaders talk of a New World Order (NWO) from different perspectives.
Henry Kissinger, the doyen of US political strategists, seemed to have the idea that there is room for only one Superpower and that is the United States. America is destined to shape world order which is based partly on Woodrow Wilson’s idealism: the right of people to choose their own government which is the essence of democracy. On this basis, Wilson repealed the 1912 Panama Act which allowed American ships to use the canal without paying dues. Wilson felt that an independent country, like Panama, had the right to charge dues to all who used the canal.
Despite his support for self-determination, Wilson backed the Monroe Doctrine (December 2, 1823) which dictated that the Americas would be a US “sphere of influence.” But he initiated imperialist policies by occupying Nicaragua in 1914, Haiti the following year, and the Dominican Republic in 1916.1 Wilson’s democracy was therefore partial.
The second foundation of American foreign policy is based on Kissinger’s doctoral thesis: balance of power. The Westphalian model ended the Thirty Years War in Europe by balancing power among small states. The plan was to prevent any one state from gaining overwhelming power over others. America thus backed the Sunni bloc against the Shia in the Middle East, Pakistan versus India, the splitting of Sudan into the North and South, and Iraq.2 This strategy, too, led to some failures, according to Kissinger: the US fought “five major wars and the aim of only one succeeded,” between 1945 and 2014.3
However, American foreign policy managed to make the US the only Superpower, ruling the world between 1990 and 2010. After the Second World War, British power declined and the US took over the leadership role of the Anglo-Saxon world. Britain had claimed that the sun never set on its empire. When the US became a Superpower between 1945 and 2010 but it had a rival in the Soviet Empire. After the Soviet Empire collapsed in 1990, the US became the sole Superpower, until the financial crisis of 2008.
America claims that it never had an empire which is partly true. Mention was made of occupying some Central American republics. But the US micro-managed the world indirectly through finance and force, hence the title of the book, The Age of Neo-Imperialism. Its military-industrial combination was so powerful that President Dwight Eisenhower had on, January 17, 1961, to warn his country of this danger, together with deficit spending and scholars influencing governments.4 The US acted as if it were “the world’s policeman,” and it became involved in “infinite wars” and “total war.” Ironically, its largest debt-holder was a budding Superpower, China.
James Warburg, a member of the Council Foreign Relations, announced emphatically that “we shall have a world government whether we like it or not.”
As it turned out, the world government was the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) where major world powers would decide the fate of the world. Unfortunately UNGC had three major defects. It was formed and controlled financially by the US; the UNSC was not beholden to the more democratic United Nations General Assembly. UNSC had no legal power to create or destroy nations.
The power-brokers in the US also used powerful institutions to direct its policies: the Bank of International Settlements, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the Trilateral Institutions, Bilderberg Group and the Club of Rome. Together, they controlled the world through the power of the dollar and gave the US an unfair trading advantage.
The US had no colonies as a rule but in practice it manipulated minor countries through aid. Consequently when the US wanted partners, it relied on its core “white” nations for a coalition and nations which were under American financial spell. Maavak, therefore, refers to the operation of a world leadership of a transnational caste of oligarchs controlled by the US.5
The US often tries to control a region by entering one country under any pretext. In the case of Viet Nam, the US filled a power vacuum, after the French were defeated in the battle of Dien Bien Phu on May 7, 1954. It then went to war in Viet Nam (1954-75) on the pretext of the “Domino Theory”: if the Communists gained power, all Asia would follow. In Colombia the reason for infiltration was to eliminate drug cartels. But the US was then allegedly responsible for coups and abortive coups in Venezuela and Peru. In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) the American strategy was “coups from below” using youths and social media.
Political philosopher from a North London university Takis Fotopoulos notes that the “armed insurrection” in MENA that reached Europe and “incremental genocide” in Palestine were examples of the US spreading chaos.6 But former Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told a CNN interviewer that the so-called Chaos Theory was intentional, to ensure that Israel was surrounded by weak states – Kissinger’s theory.7 On the other hand, according to President Obama, the US is an indispensable nation needed to solve problems; no other country would make the sacrifices that the US is called upon to make.
There is another unintended consequence of the US violating the “sovereignty doctrine”: its foreign policies reflect the domestic. The racial policies of Ferguson and “Stand your ground” laws are reflected in Cuba, Angola, and India when sanctions were imposed. The US has “gated communities” for the wealthy, while Israel is a “gated nation.” The income divide between the proverbial 1% and 99% which Republican Rand Paul called “Crony Capitalism” is duplicated abroad, though the US cannot be solely responsible for this divide.
Normally when a country is doing well economically, the country eases on restrictions of all kinds, as the US did in the sixties. The country becomes more liberal than it used to be. But in the seventies, when Kissinger became Secretary of State the trend was towards authoritarianism and militarization of the state: excess military hardware was given to the police; embassies were militarized; electronic spying was so rampant that it hurt Snowden’s conscience; the rich were stashing cash in tax-free havens; prisons were overflowing with law-breakers. Rand Paul mentioned the obvious: there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.8
Abroad, the CIA was illegally using torture. Dianne Feinstein’s report on CIA’s part in torture ran to 6,300 pages. The enquiry led to the CIA hacking the computers of Senators. Senator McCain, who was himself tortured in Viet Nam said that “This is out of a movie. In some ways, it’s worse than criminal.”9
Excessive use of force in foreign policy is visible when Kissinger tried to retaliate by drawing plans to attack Cuba for assisting Mandela against the Boers. He wanted to blockade the major Cuban port and destroy key installations in Cuba.10 Kissinger’s critic, former Deputy Assistant Secretary Frank O’Mara, said that “you would think that Cuba had invaded the whole continent.” This case shows the use of excessive force that does not match the crime, a technique often used by Israel.
During the Viet Nam War the US used chemical weapons among other Weapons of Mass Destruction.
In the case of NATO, its chairman Anders Fogh Rasmussen accused Russia erroneously of “rejecting all our efforts to engage.” In fact Christoph Horstel, a consultant to the German Government, said that “NATO has violated nearly each and every paragraph of the “NATO-Russia pact.”11 In any case, sanctions as those imposed by the US are an act of war; Russia is not Palestine, Syria or Iran.
A “Syrian Girl” on You-tube hinted on a strange happening in American foreign policy. Al Qaeda is allied to the CIA; al Qaeda is CIAda, the Syrian Girl said.12
This alliance is true, but hidden. The CIA backed the mujahudeen in Afghanistan, against the Russians, with equipment and training. When the Russians left, al Qaeda wanted the Americans out of Afghanistan. There are many examples where beneficiaries turned against their donors.
The latest was the backing of the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq which morphed into the Islamic State (IS). The US and Saudi Arabia financed IS to overthrow Assad, but IS decided to take a different route and saw America as an enemy. The lesson is that a rebel group will take what it can get by siding with the US and its allies before branching out on its own, often, against its allies.
One has, therefore, to question Australian political writer Peter Hartcher’s conclusion13: “the conventional wisdom is that the western democracies are in crisis, and with each passing year this idea becomes conventional.” He quotes a poll taken in the US. To a statement, “You can trust your government to do what is right just about always, or most of the time,” the true response was 76% in the 1960s, while it dwindled to 19% in the first decade of the twenty-first century.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, George W. Bush expressed the need to follow the Helsinki Conference in establishing a New World Order. It involved a reduction of nuclear arms, a democratization of corporations that dominated world commerce, and reducing the gap between the two Superpower ideologies. A unipolar world was preferred to a bi-polar one. It did not dawn of policy makers then that a new Superpower would blossom, nor could corporations be democratized.
At the 9th Annual Alaksauteri Conference on 29-31 October, 2009, in Helsinki, Finland, it was decided that the Cold War reaction between the West and the former Soviet bloc generated the Golden Age of the Welfare State in Scandinavia from 1945 to 1975.14 So, the New World Order for Scandinavia came before the fall of the Soviet Union.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev15 felt that the focus of a New World Order should be the UN to deal with global problems. This body should not dominate others. The urgency is seen if one realizes what might happen if weapons of mass destruction fell into the hands of terrorists.
Gorbachev’s ideas were backed by grass-root movements for global change.16 The UN had three Commissions. Other reports included the Palme Report, the Brandt Reports, and the Brundtland Report. The common issues facing mankind included military hardware, poverty, environmental crises, human rights, global security and economic development. The leaders of these reports felt that change comes from political power which had to be transparent.
The US publically claimed that it was ruling the world as a world peace-maker. But Zionism actually did rule the world from 1990 to 2010, albeit obliquely through the West.
Zionism had two recognized states one in Russia and the other in Palestine. Since both were shaky, Zionism made an abortive attempt to establish a state in Nicaragua. Two hundred and thirty members of an orthodox sect, Lev Tahor, went to settle in San Juan La Laguna, Nicaragua. The elders of the Mayan Council threatened to cut off electricity and water to the community and if that did not succeed, physical violence. The complaint was that the intruding community was setting the prices for Mayan goods which hurt their tourist business. A Palestinian situation might well have developed in Nicaragua.17
Israeli kith and kin also control Ukraine which is involved in a mini-war with Russia. Zionists also looked at Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda for settlement. Zionism seems to be spreading its wings worldwide.18
Israeli power comes from the fact that Zionists control every aspect of American life and to a lesser extent Europe. Brother Nathanael19 who was born Jewish but converted to Christianity showed how this is done. In 2009, Jews were only 2% of the population but controlled Congress, the media, the Armed Services Committee, the surveillance society, even at a lower level like what goes into a bookshop: the National Security Agency, CIA renditions, drone assassinations and military detentions. The term used for such control is “Full Spectrum Dominance.”
Jewish oligarchs sponsor several Political Action Committees and offer secret money for various purposes, at home and abroad. Democratic Party leader in the Senate Harry Reid opposed the Koch brothers for opposing any legislation that favoured the poor. They are also supporting the Republicans to gain both Houses.20 George Soros was linked with the financing of the Arab Spring and Marina Silva, a Brazilian presidential candidate.
In Europe, the Rothschild bankers are noted for having enormous political clout. The seed was sown in 1773 when Maye Amschel Rothschild assembled a dozen close friends and convinced them that if they pooled their money together “they could rule the world.”21 And so they did, eventually, between 1990 and 2010.
Abroad, Anglin summarized Jewish power in the Ukrainian crisis in this way: “The soul of this revolution is entirely Jewish and it is the Jewish agenda which is being served by the destabilization of Slavia and her Mother Russia.”22 The powerful Jewish lobby backed by Anglo political power dared to take on a former Superpower, Russia, which was re-establishing the Soviet Union. One can imagine the devastation that would follow if Ukraine were occupied.
Elsewhere, it was pointed out that the Superpowers were not the USA and China, but the Jews and the Hans, two ethnic groups. The Age of Neo-Imperialism began in 1945 when Israel was created and the US was the first to recognize it in 1948. It took 45 years before the Zionist power matured to a world power, the Judaic world power by the “Chosen People.” But since Zionists have to work in countries where the political control is Anglo-Saxon, we have to refer to an Anglo-Zionist structure.
One would have expected that Al Qaeda and other "terrorist" groups would have attacked Israel a long time ago. But Brandon Turbioille explains why they did not.23 Israel and the CIA were controlling these groups. The International Security Academy of Israel was training and financing “terrorists,” for deposing Assad and to divide the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Fatah. The Muslim Brotherhood was also under Israeli spell, as its leader Issam Hattito resided in Tel Aviv. Israel nursed Shaikh Yassin’s Islamic group, Mujama al-Islamiya, which was first recognized as a charity and in 1979 as an association. Students from the Islamic University of Gaza were allowed, and encouraged to join Hamas. In 1990 Hamas morphed into a fighting force and when it won the elections in Gaza in 2006, it became anti-Israel. Hamas is yet another major group that turned against its benefactors. This explains why Israel’s Prime Minister, Netanyahu, is now equating Hamas with the IS. Brother Nathanael forecasted that Israel wanted to wipe Gaza from the map eventually, take over its land and, more importantly, the gas fields that adjoin its coastal belt.
One fallout is the anti-Israeli sentiment in the West, particularly Europe. Professor of Modern Jewish History at Emory University notes that 95% of anti-Semitic actions in France are committed by youths of Arab and African descent, many of mixed marriages.24
The major fallout of chaos in the Middle East is the refugee problem which the UNHCR summarized thus:
UNHCR 2014 Refugee Profile in the Middle East
Country Refugees From Refugees In IDPs
Iraq 401,417 246,298 954,128
Palestine 96,044 0 0
Syria 2.4m 149,292 6.5m
Jordan 1,632 641,915 0
Lebanon 3,824 856,546 0
Yemen 2,428 241, 288 306,614
Since 2010, the Old Order of Neo-Imperialism has changed from two Superpowers, Russia and the US, to one Superpower, the US. Starting 2014, we have again two Superpowers, China and the US, with Russia a strong third. Russia’s position is based on military might mainly, and its resulting influence. Brazil and India have some way to go before they catch up as leading powers. But South Africa, and more recently Nigeria have strong regional influences; they need to make much progress before they can compete with other BRICS to become major world powers.
A New Age of Harmonization can hopefully emerge if certain changes take place.
Rothe hopes that as the US “pivots to Asia” a new kind of modernity might emerge: “the Asian cultural tradition might contribute to a different kind of modernity: a harmony in the sense of a floating and developing balance of symmetrical and hierarchical relations between the individual and the community.”74
Harmonization will only come when a proper concept of democracy is universally adopted. US democracy is flawed in that money plays a predominant role in elections: the country has just two parties though there are candidates who are “independents”; elections are rigged; electoral districts are frequently re-drawn to favour one party against another; the country is rigged to favor the proverbial 1%, in income, education, opportunity and law.
Abroad, the US will not allow international institutions to be democratized. Since the international structure is also rigged, democracy cannot take hold and harmonization will not take root. China is beginning to change this biased structure, hopefully for the benefit of mankind.75 Should there be a world government, its membership has to be democratized and its rules universalized, for harmonization in certain fields. In a multi-polar world there has to be multi-polar organisational controls and policies.
Whether one is thinking of Anglo-Zionist goals, the Islamic ones, or any other, one has to conclude that it is the extremists who are setting the stage. The majority are not aware of the plots, the drama and the outcomes. World domination is an expensive, unachievable dream in an educated world.
Share this article with your facebook friends
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah & ccun.org.
firstname.lastname@example.org & email@example.com