Church Attack: Morocco had warned France just 4 days before

On the 22 July, four days before two men stormed the church of St Etienne-du-Rouvray, the Moroccan intelligence services had warned the French authorities of an imminent attack.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "prêtre tué france"

This was revealed yesterday by the magazine Marianne which explains that the Moroccan intelligence services had warned France of an “immediate threat” and provided a photo of one of the suspects, Abdel Malik Petitjean.

According to the alert sent to the French police by the Moroccan anti-terrorist unit:

The individual, whose photo appears below, is prepared to participate in a terrorist attack on French soil. He is already in France and could either act alone or with other people. The date, the target and the method are, currently, unknown. Investigations are being carried out in order to identify the target…

Although the French anti-terrorist units were on a state of alert, they could not prevent the two individuals from killing the priest, Jacques Hamel, and from seriously wounding another member of the congregation.

This is not the first time that the intelligence services have warned the French. Last November, Morocco had provided the location of Abdelhamid Abaaoud, one of the terrorists who attacked the Paris football stadium.

Translated from French

Source: Bladi Net,45956.html

See also: “Algerian Intelligence had Warned the French”

Terrorism – A Geopolitical Perspective

Who will tell you about the origins of the different forms of terrorism ? Who will explain the geopolitical role of this destructive logic in the confrontation between the two opposing blocks in the world? So far, sociologists and other experts have not been able to usefully categorise the different types of terrorism, according to their geostrategic role, and place them in a historical perspective.

The Clash of Civilisations – A Messianic Strategy 

Some people know, superficially at any rate, Samuel Huntington’s pseudo theory which has been greatly promoted by the media. The “clash of civilisations” divides the world according to religion and civilisation and presents the diversity of cultures as the root cause of geopolitical conflict. It therefore implies that only cultural and political unification will eliminate all conflict.  This is in line with Francis Fukayama’s idea of the end of history, which is constantly proven wrong by reality


Few know that this so-called theory was taken from Bernard Lewis who, in 1957, developed his clash of civilisations concept. According to this, the Christian world and the Muslim world are, by their very nature, destined to confront each other until the end of “history” or rather until both of these civilisations destroy each other in an eschatological war which will be to the benefit of a third party

My latest historical research (1), which identifies the origins of Zionism and this clash of civilisations strategy, shows that what Lewis had put forward as theoretical conflict between the most important religions in the world is in fact a messianic strategy, which was developed during the Middle Ages as part of the project to re-establish the Kingdom of Israel. This project gave birth to political Zionism in its atheist form at the end of the 19th century.

Bernard Lewis – who holds Israeli, Britsh and Amerian passports – is not just an historian. He also a strategist who has worked at the heart of both the British and American state, and has done so ultimately for the benefit of Israel. He is, moreover, one of those influential stateless people who are members of, or allies to, the powerful American pro-Israel lobby, which pushed the American administration to destroy Iraq (2) to the benefit of Israeli expansionism. Lewis will go down in history as having given a scientific facade, a theoretical disguise, to this messianic strategy. History will recognise that Huntington brought this strategy to the masses in order to justify global chaos, which is not a natural state of affairs, but is encouraged by powerful forces (3).

Terrorism has not always been international. Nor has it always had that shade which certain ideologues close to Zionist and neo-conservative circles describe as “green-fascism”+. Neither has terrorism always benefited from Hollywood-style media promotion on a global scale.

What we describe as being terrorism, sometimes wrongly, can take a large number of forms and have many definitions.

We can draw a parellel between the terror linked to the expansion of the Cromwell regime in the 17th century with that of Wahhabism in the Arab peninsula in the 18th century. We can also make a comparison with the French revolution of 1789, which preceded the social-anarcho revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries.

These revolutions, which were accompanied by territorial conquest, all had one point in common : mass extermination as a means of achieving ideological domination. The goal was to construct modern institutions on the ruins of the traditional society.

The socialist ideology behind these historical catastrophes also gave birth to the Haganah, created in the early 1920s, which in turn led to the creation of the Irgun. These Jewish homeland (Yishuv) terrorist organisations, which formed the basis of what was to become the IDF, were created to support and expand the Jewish settlements in Palestine.

Wahhabi Terrorism, Zionist Terrorism and False Flag Attacks

It is necessary to distinguish two types of terrorism, the analysis of which will allow us to see geopolitics from a different perspective:

  • Wahhabi terrorism, directed by America, whose aim is territorial conquest and the disintegration of nations.
  • Zionist terrorism which aims to divide and provoke.

Although the British created a Jewish homeland for the Zionists at the end of the First World War, the Irgun led a violent campaign against the British in order to drive them out of Palestine (4).

This culminated with the bombing of the British administrative headquarters in the Hotel King David on the 22 July 1946. An important detail : the Irgun terrorists dressed as Arabs for the occasion so that the Palestinians would be blamed for the attackThis is an excellent example of a “false flag” attack.

The Israelis carried out several disguised attacks of this sort in order to drag their allies into armed conflicts:

  • In 1954, Israeli agents attempted to blow up several American buildings in Egypt in order to turn the Americans against the Egyptians.
  • In 1967, the Americans avoided intervening in the Six-Day War as the Soviet Union was an ally to Syria and Egypt. The Israelis attempted to draw the Americans into the war by attacking their reconnaissance ship, the USS Liberty. The Israelis attempted to pass this off as an attack by the Egyptians, in the same way as they had done in 1954.

The same pattern can be found with the 9/11 attacks which led the United States into a permanent war with one part of the Muslim world, in accordance with the clash of civilisations strategy and the Israeli project to redraw the boundaries of the Muslim world (5). The World Trade Centre attacks were viewed with suspicion by various analysts, scientists and politicians.

Certain facts lead me to believe that we are dealing with the same strategy as that deployed in 1946, 1954 and 1967.

Among the stack of evidence highlighting the implication, albeit indirect, of the Israeli secret services in these spectacular attacks we find the fact that five Israelis were arrested by the New York police. They were caught rejoicing while taking photos of each other in front of the burning towers.  The police had discovered documents in their possession which proved that they knew the exact time and location of the attacks. It turned out that they were Mossad agents. Their names: Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari.

Some thirty other Israeli agents, who went undercover as art students in America, lived close to 15 of the supposed hijackers (6).

An article in the New York Times, published on the 18 February 2009, revealed that Ali al-Jarrah, who was a cousin of Ziad al-Jarrah, the hijacker of flight UA93, had been a Mossad spy for 25 years and had infiltrated the Palestinian resistance movement in 1983.

Moreover, the US Army School for Advance Military Studies published a report, quoted in a Washington Times article *, which stated that Mossad “has the capability to target US forces and make it look like an Arab/Palestinian act”.

What’s more, journalists working for Le Monde revealed on February 2015 that a Mossad agent in Panama, Shimon Yalin Yelinik, had confessed to having funded the 9/11 terrorists.

Benjamin Netanyahou, the current Israeli Prime Minister, gladly admitted that the terrorist attacks benefitted Israel. The Israeli newspaper Maariv quoted Netanyahou, who declared the 9/11 attacks had been “good for Israel” and added: “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq. These events have swung American public opinion in our favour”

When interviewed by a French journalist for I-Télé on the 7 August 2014, Netanyahou implied, somewhat menacingly, that terrorists would attack France if it did not support Israel in its policy with regard to the Palestinians.

We do not have solid proof to hand of Mossad involvement in the terrorist attacks against France, carried out in 2012 and 2015. Nevertheless, Georges Malbrunot, journalist for Le Figaro, stated in a Tweet 17 days after the November attacks that: “A military official confides that the DGSI (the French secret service) refused Israeli assistance in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks” and adds that “Mossad took advantage of the honeymoon between Sarkozy and Israel to reinforce its presence in France”. He concludes with the DGSI’s own words: “Mossad already has an active presence on French soil and we must not reinforce it”

This confirms the statement of the former French minister for foreign affairs, Roland Dumas. In his book, Coups et Blessures, he delared that: “The Israelis do what they like in France and manipulate the French intelligence service, the DST, in any way which suits them … The Jewish lobby, as Mitterrand used to call it, was extremely active”.

This Zionist form of terrorism combines perfectly with the nihilistic Wahhabi form of terrorism, a product of two ideologies which appear foreign to one another. From an historical and geopolitical point of view, they merge within the framework of the clash of civilisations strategy.

What is extraordinary is the fact that Wahhabism and Zionism, as incarned by a nation state, appeared at the same time and were both backed by the British armed forces.

The British, who supported at arms’ length the accomplishment of the Zionist project in the aftermath of the First World War, also encouraged Saudi-Wahhabi expansionism in the Arab peninsula in the early 1920s.

In 1945, the Americans took over from the British in their support for Saudi Arabia, in the same way as they did for the state of Israel, and contributed to the spread of the Wahhabi doctrine across the world (7).

Wahabbi terrorism was, right from the very start, a geostrategic weapon used by the British and Americans against their enemies. As mentioned previously, this form of terrorism is used by the Anglo-Saxons as a corrosive to fragment target nations.

Indeed, in the late 1970s, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was at the time National Security Advisor to President Carter, masterminded the coordination of the CIA with the Pakistani and Saudi intelligence services in order to finance future terrorists, including Bin Laden, in order to draw the Soviet Union into Afghanistan.

In the late 1990s, this strategy was again deployed in Chechnya in order to trigger the collapse of the Russian Federation. It was then used in Iraq (in 2003) and again in Libya, in Syria and in Yemen. And, perhaps, it will again be used in Algeria.

This fact was finally admitted by the New York Times on the 23 January 2016: “US relies heavily on Saudi money to support Syrian Rebels” **

Geopolitical Conclusion – America versus Russia in the Struggle to Control Eurasia

Let’s put this into a geostrategic perspective. The key issue in the geopolitics of opposing continental blocks is the control of Eurasia, the centre of which is the Middle East.

The Atlanticist policy, whose strategy for the year 2000 onwards was developed by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997, consists of penetrating deeply into Eurasia by making Europe one of the vital pillars of an American-sponsored Eurasian structure of security and cooperation (8).

This strategy aims to destroy, or at least weaken, Russia by pushing for Ukrainian independence. This would change the very geostrategic nature of Russia: “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire (9)”.

Russia is the main target. It is having to cope with a double strategy, as explained in article published in 2015 (10). First, there is the Brzezinski strategy, which serves American imperial interests. Secondly, there is the more covert Zionist strategy, epitomised by Henry Kissinger. This consists of disconnecting Russia from its allies in the Middle East, in particular Iran and Syria.

So far, Putin’s Russia has withstood the Kissinger strategy. On 11 May 2014, Kissinger declared that “we should not isolate Russia and it’s in everybody’s interests that it be maintained in the international system.” As far back as 2008, he reached out to Russia, claiming that the United States should seek agreement with Russia, while describing Iran as being a danger for the region, in accordance with the Israeli geopolitical doctrine. This sent a clear message to the Russians : you will remain in the international system provided that you abandon your Middle Eastern allies in favour of Israel. But this geopolitical deal is a trap, the ultimate goal being to weaken Russia.

The conclusion is obvious: the stabilisation and the continued existence of the Middle East, the Maghreb and Europe depend on the formation of a mutually beneficial strategic axis, stretching from Brest to Vladivostock, running through Rabat and Alger. This would lead to Brezinski’s worst nightmare: the loosening of transatlantic ties which would bring an end to America’s primacy in Eurasia.

+Islamic extremism. Green is the colour of the cloth used to cover coffins in Islamic funerals.

Translated from French

The original author was Youssef Hindi

Source: Arret Sur Info


(1) Youssef Hindi, Occident et islam – Sources et genèse messianiques du sionisme, éd. Sigest, 2015.

(2) Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, 2008

 (3) Youssef Hindi op. cit.

(4) Henry Laurens, L’Orient arabe, Arabisme et islamisme de 1798 à 1945, éd. Armand Colin, 1993, p. 353.

(5) Oded Yinon’s “A strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”, Published by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc., Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982, Special Document N° 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8).

(6) Youssef Hindi, op. cit.

(7) Hamadi Redissi, Le pacte de Nadjd, ou comment l’islam sectaire est devenu l’islam, 2007, éd. Seuil.

(8) Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997.

(9) Zbigniew Brzezinski, op. cit.

(10) Youssef Hindi, La Russie, l’Europe et l’Orient, Revue Europe & Orient, N° 21, 2015.

Governing by Chaos

Following yet another tragic and avoidable terrorist attack on French soil, it is salutary to remember that sometimes not is all what it seems and that chaos and carnage attributed to an enemy, either real or imagined (the victims, sadly, are always only too real), can in fact be a way of maintaining power. The following extract from Lucien Cerise’s Gouverner par le Chaos (Governing by Chaos), details the psychological operations used by governments in order to crush any opposition to their rule.

Afficher l'image d'origine

Counter-insurgency warfare

In their work on the virtualisation of politics, social engineers have drawn much inspiration from the methods of counter-insurgency warfare. Manufacturing the population’s consent demands the ability to side-step, counteract and eliminate the risk that it stages a rebellion.

Faced with the various civil insurrections which have marked the 20th century – colonial wars, revolutions, guerrilla warfare, uprisings and social conflict – military officers of various countries have sought to formalize counter-insurgency tactics. By counter-insurgency tactics we mean proven coercive methods to prevent any form of popular resistance to government power, ideally nipping it in the bud even before it appears.

The most famous manuals are :

Modern Warfare by Roger Trinquier

Counter-Insurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice by David Galula

Low Intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency and Peacekeeping by Frank Kitson.

The retired British army general, Frank Kitson, held the most prestigious posts (he was Commander in Chief of UK land forces) and gained the highest distinctions (he was awarded Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire).

With many years of experience gained in operations on the ground (Kenya, Malaysia, Northern Ireland, Falklands), he wrote a manual which provides a summary of the tactics to be deployed by an armed unit seeking to prevail over a rebellious local population.

This book was never published in French and we only know of five copies in the French university library system. In fact, the mere publication of this book in larger numbers could radically shift the world’s geopolitical balance of power.

The investigative journalist, Michel Collon, summarises the content of this holy grail of political thought :

“Though a general, Kitson considers that conventional police and military tactics have no chance of working in a campaign for  ‘hearts and minds’, what he terms strategic psychological warfare”.

What lies behind this obscure term, “strategic psychological warfare” ?

It becomes clearer once we examine the range of techniques advocated and used by Kitson :

  • Give all government chiefs (in the army, ministry of foreign affairs, etc) training in the methods of psychological operations or “psy ops” (the psychological manipulation of public opinion)
  • Form “psuedogangs” to gather a maximum amount of intelligence. More importantly, by carrying out operations attributed to the enemy, these gangs will discredit the opposition.
  • Create diversions by, for example, fermenting religious wars.
  • Create false documents (“black propaganda”) and attribute these to the enemy in order to discredit him.
  • Place agents in the opposition groups or incite members to betray the group (either by using blackmail or corruption) in order to discredit these organisations or even create splits.
  • Militarise the news and completely censure all opposing opinion. Control the international news and ensure collaboration. Provide photos to influence public opinion. Use journalists on the ground as spies.
  • Use music to attract young people with a message which appears non-political.
  • Set up and promote artificially “spontaneous” groups, presented as being neutral and independent but which are in fact financed and controlled with the aim to weaken support for the opposition.

Thus Kitson reviews the entire arsenal of weapons used by political leaders today: create false enemies, false friends, false problems and false solutions by means of erroneous perceptions induced by false terrorist attacks (what’s termed “false flag” attacks in the military jargon) and false news (black propaganda, which is entirely false, or grey propaganda, which is mixture of both truth and lies, in order to make the population accept what is not true). All these techniques can be categorised as “psy ops”.

As Christian Harbulot higlights in his Cognitive Warfare, manipulation, lies, decoys and deception are age-old political techniques when it comes to controlling minds via images and words. In the very first chapter of his manual, Sun Tzu declares “All warfare is based on deception.” More recently, general Francart explains in great detail how propaganda should emulate advertising techniques in order to gain the approval of, or even curry favour with, the target population.

The ‘derealisation’ of politics has reached its high point thanks to mass media, especially the television, a fabulous tool of social control, a spy which has penetrated as far as the bedrooms of our teenage children. Television alters perceptions and shapes the way that millions of citizens see the world. The most important tool in psychological operations, the television has placed whole populations in an artificial reality, which has been completely constructed by the government.

Translated from French

Source: Gouverner par le Chaos (Governing by Chaos), written by Lucien Cerise and published by Max Milo. Pages 58-61.




Terrorism in France : Who’s really guilty?

Yet again, France is deep in mourning following an atrocious crime carried out by a savage.

Obviously, our first thoughts are for the victims and their families to whom we express our most sincere condolences and who are in our prayers.

But we must also call for the French to be clear-headed. Neither candles nor cartoons are an appropriate response to what is happening before our eyes.

It is vital to identify where the responsibility lies by going back to the causes of terrorism and everything that goes with it.

Those who are truly guilty are the politicians, whether they be left or right-wing, from Nicolas Sarkozy to François Hollande, along with Bernard-Henry Lévy and Laurent Fabius, who orchestrated the chaos in the Middle East in the name of interests which are not those of France and who supported Islamist groups, which now operate here.

Also guilty are those organise mass immigration into Europe. Terrorists hide among the groups of immigrants. Two scourges, in collusion with our government, join forces to hit our continent hard.

Also guilty are those who are in charge of protecting the French and who continue to serve the anti-France ideology, such as Patrick Calvar, head of the French intelligence service (DGSI), who, during his address at the parliamentary inquiry into the 2015 terrorist attacks, stated that further terrorist attacks were to be expected and, at the same time, asked for additional resources to “deal with the extreme right”.

Also guilty are those who, in a Machiavellian fashion, use the terrorist attacks to introduce more laws to restrict our freedoms, laws which are not designed to put the terrorists out of action but which aim to put the French under surveillance in order to silence any real opposition.

Also guilty are the self-righteous who, honouring the principle of “we mustn’t make generalisations”, oppose basic measures aimed at protecting us from all those in our country who have been identified as supporting ISIL/ISIS, the Al-Nusra Front and other Islamic extremist groups of this sort. This principle of “we mustn’t make generalisations” is in fact the most effective way to ensure that people make generalisations.

True political courage begins by telling the French the truth.

Article Translated from French

The original author was Alain Escada, president of Civitas

Source: Egalité et Réconciliation

Theresa May’s Oath of Allegiance to Israel

What distinguishes Theresa May is that she is the favourite of the British Jewish and Zionist community, according to an article published on The Jewish News website on the 8th July. (This article has, without explanation, been recently censured by the site itself) [1].

Following the example of Manuel Valls, Theresa May caused a stir when, as an invitee of Israel’s 67th anniversary celebration in April 2015, she declared that “without its Jews, Britain would not be Britain”. [2]

During the ceremony, she notbaly paid hommage to “the sacrifice” of the terrorists and war criminals – portrayed positively as “soldiers” – who ensured the independence of Israel. [3].

On the 18 January 2015, accompanied by leaders from the British Jewish community, Theresa May had held up the poster “I am Jewish” as a sign of solidarity for the 4 people killed (and who were then buried in Israel) in the attack on the Kosher supermarket in Paris.

On the 18 January 2015, accompanied by leaders from the British Jewish community, Theresa May had held up the poster “I am Jewish” as a sign of solidarity for the 4 people killed (and who were then buried in Israel) in the attack on the Kosher supermarket in Paris.

The only rival to Theresa May, Andrea Leadsom, who today announced the withdrawal of her candidature, was also a member of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI).

But there was one key difference between her and May. As early as 2007, she had said “we still cannot accept Israel’s domination of Palestine” [4]

11 July 2016






Article Translated from French

Source: Égalité et Réconciliation

Israel rejoices at Boris Johnson’s appointement as UK Foreign Secretary

Israel is pleased that Boris Johnson has been appointed British Foreign Secretary by Theresa May. Both are considered to be valuable friends to Israel and the Jewish community.

Former mayor of London and MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Boris Johnson is viewed by the Israeli press as being one of the most pro-Israeli British MPs, above all because of his support for the fight against the Israeli boycott.

In 2015, during an official visit to Israel, Boris Johnson mentioned his Jewish roots, declaring that “Yes, I have Jews in my family from Moscow, some of them rabbis”.

Translated from French

Source: Medias-Presse-Info

Brexit and World Government

International finance is nomadic. After having blossomed in Holland (the “Dutch Jerusalem”), it migrated to the City of London in the second half of the 17th century, following an alliance concluded between the dictator Cromwell and the rabbi Menasseh ben Israël, leader of the Dutch Jewish-Marrano financial community.  The “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 imposed a new dynasty, while the creation of the Bank of England in 1694 allowed British imperialism, against a background of Talmudic messianism, to set out to conquer the treasures of this world.

Menasseh ben Israel’s petition to Oliver Cromwell

The USA, the fruit of British colonialism, gave birth to another financial hub: Wall Street. The epitome of late 19th century financial omnipotence, the highly biblical “street of the wall” maintained close ties with City bankers, who, as the work of Eustace Mullins* has revealed, formed an internal state in conjunction with the British Empire (the Commonwealth). The Federal Reserve, created in 1913 at the behest of powerful figures in banking (Kuhn, Loeb, Schiff, Warburg), reinforced the all-powerful influence of this financial aristocracy.

This aristocracy moved to a higher level with creation of the Bank for International Settelements (BIS) in 1930. The BIS was created at the intiative of Hjalmar Schacht (1877-1970). Appointed president of the Reichsbank by Hitler in 1933, Schacht then served as his minister of economics between 1934 and 1937.

Bank for International Settlements (BIS)

Schacht, who was very closely linked to the Anglo-Saxon oligarchy, especially Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944, believed that there was a need to create a central bank for central banks.

Hjalmar Schacht

The BIS is the nucleus of international finance, bringing together the world’s financial elite. As the American historian Caroll Quigley put it:

The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world, acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.

Quigley, C.,  Tragedy and Hope (Macmillan, New York, 1974)  p. 324

This background allows us to understand that events following the Brexit referendum are not based on the ideal of protecting the interests of the British people. Rather these events reflect a strategy of financial and political reconfiguration by the international oligarchy, the leader of which is the City, working in conjunction with the secretive BIS.

China, despite having debt at an estimated 250% of GDP and catastrophic population growth, is the rising star of the world economy and is a firm favourite with the City, as are the world’s tax havens and the Commonwealth countries, especially now since the dollar’s days are numbered. The post-1945 world is being destroyed, and so the international oligarchy is repositioning itself for a world currency and world government.

The IMF’s decision to include the Yuan in its Special Drawing Right (SDR) currency basket (alongside the Dollar, the Euro, the Pound, and the Yen) is a prelude to the financial and political chaos both in Europe and the rest of the world, paving the way to a single world currency, the so-called Phoenix, which The Economist had called for in 1988.

The name of this world currency and the date of its appearance are of little importance. The fulfilment of these Babelian ambitions will be the final and crowning victory for a world government of bankers, the enemies of humanity.

*See Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve:

Article Translated from French

The original author was Pierre Hillard

Source: Boulevard Voltaire,269801