Foreword. Introduction for those who do not know me.In my youth, a Dutch pundit had a radio program every sunday at noon, called: "The state of the world." (Geopolitical punditry, by Mr. GBJ Hilterman.)-----------------
On this blog I do it every now and then.
I may be biased. For the new-comer: read my mission statement .
I believe it makes sense to look at the agenda of those who have the most power. Their agenda is the best predictor of my and your future. I think jewish groups have the most power. They controle western media, and the foreign policy of the country with the largest army in the world. So it makes sense to see what is happening, from the perspective of jewish interests.
In 1982 Oded Yinon, an Israeli insider, wrote his Plan for Israel:
The 6 million Israelis are doomed to have conmflict with 150 million surrounding arabs, as we want the Palestinians outm, and Israel to become larger.
How to win this conflict? By way of deception, of course. ( The motto of the Mossad).
Yinon's advise: Create division inside all these arab neighbour countries, and let them weaken themselves. Let these countries fall apart in smaller countries.
In 1989 an ex Mossad agent wrote in his book that Israel wanted Saddam Hussein out. Just a few months later Hussein was lured into Kuwait ( with the consent of the Americans) . Once inside, he unexpectedly was vilified for it with fake news ( incubator babies etc.) and driven out.
To the enormous regret of the Neocons, papa Bush did not want to get rid of Saddam yet.
After the end of communism and the destructiuon of Russia by Americans ( listen to Mark Ames)
the American jewish groups could follow their own agenda.
They deliberately created a huge financial crisis in order to make many governments poor ( after bailing out banks) and thus dependent on remaining huge banks.
Another group first wrote an advise to Israel: stop beïng nice to the Palestinians. Use power.
Then the same PNAC members wrote their PNAC report ( RAD) , saying that the US should have many wars around the world in order to controle all countries. Of course the public would never agree to that, but if 'a new Pearl Harbor' ( a brutal attack by The Ennemy) would happen, then the public would quicly be willing to go to war.
About 1 year latrer this 'New Peasrl Harbor' happened ( Israeli fingerprints all over, but you can leave the cover up to the MSM, which are owned by them), and just a few weeks after 911 the agenda was known in the Pentagon: "We will take out seven countries: Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Lybia, Libanon and Iran."
Only 16 years later 5 of these countries are taken out. Libanon is overwhelmed by Syrian refugees and barely survives. Yemen was added to the list.
What remains is Iran: the biggest country of them all.
One that can hardly be conquered ( See The Saker) , but that is not the goal. The goal is to weaken them or split them in small pieces.
Last year I was surprised by the Iran-deal that Obama and Kerry could push through. Israel protested vehemently , but apparently they were not all-powerfull.
I considered it a warning: my hypothesis about the huge jewish influence on American politics needed some footnotes, maybe even a little re-wrting.
(Actually what I think is that nobody will always get what he wants, there is always an opposition, and they also will win some battles. But the credit crunch and all the wars in the middle east were on the jewish agenda, and on no one else's agenda and the became true. So you can safely say that they are determining my life and your life in the last decennia. Their agenda almost always wins. So it is their dangerous idea's that we should fight. Not the dangerous ideas of some Eskimo's or other powerless Alpha's.)
Side-bar: the election of Trump.
Hillary was supportive of the destruction of Yugoslavia, Lybia, Syria and Yemen. She was backed by the Neocons.
Trump did not want war with Russia, wanted to stop fascism ( TTIP and TPP is the overtaking of politics by Big Corporations) , wanted to bring Americans industries back to America, amd promised
to drain the swamp. Those were the reasons I preferred him above Hillary.
Of course he has some mean friends, like Bannon. But he will need all the devils he can get to fight the esdtablishment.
Of course he is surrounded by jewish friends and family and advisers and financers, but look: no war with Russia, no TTIP , no globalisation, no swamp: first things first. And all my teachers ( Israel Shamir, Shahak, Gurvitz, Chomsky, Atzmon, Cole, etc etc are jewish. There are many many good jewish people in the world of course. Most jewish people are fantastic, of course. We just need to stop the few and powerful bad ones.
( This goes for every race in the world: the non alpha males are always OK. But the alpha's get different hormones and different genes are switched on: they start to be bullies and go for total Control. It's human nature. Only: an Alpha eskimo is never dangerous. Buf: the very intelligent and very rich Alpha males of this world are really able to get to Total Controle, so we should concentrate on them to stop them. For jewish Alpha's there is a huge benefit: the holocaust and their belief that all goy are a threat to every jew, for eternity, makes a conspiratory just a natural thing. This gives them extra efficiency and power. )
End of side bar.
How could Obama and Kerry make this Iran deal? Against all jewish opposition?
I thought that it was in fact a good deal for Israel: if they are sure that Iran does not develop a nucelar bomb, nothing can happen to Israel: the have atom bombs, and can never be wiped into the sea, by no country that has no bomb. I even think it was not a good idea of Iran to agree to the deal. A bomb is their only protection. But religiously the Iranians are against atomic power, so they had no intention to make a bomb, so they reaped the benefits of the deal: no more sanctions against Teheran.A 2009 study by Brookings (A very important Think Tank, and like all Think tanks it came under jewish rule in the last decennia) gives me the answer:
...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.
Tony Cartalucci wrote the article that I am quoting from:
Of course the Iranians did accept the 'superb offer', but now they are portrayed as if they are not living up to the deal: Iran attacks our ships, the White House spokesman said.
The truth was: Houthi's are supposed to be proxies of Iran, and are supposed to have shot at a Saudi ship ( no video's available. just hearsay). And the Saudi's are America's friends, of course.
What bussiness did the Saudi's have there? What does America do there?
Already in the first weeks of Trumps presidency things are becoming clear:
After Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Lybia, and Yemen it will be finally Iran's turn.
And Trump will be the executioner.
In order to do that he has to appease Putin.
So the big question now is: Will Putin and China throw Iran under the bus, or will they defend it, like they defended Syria. (Not that Syria survived. It is a mess. Israel can be happy. But the jihadi's are stopped, which benefits Russia and China).
Here is a nice video about it all: Trump's new world order.