Who benefited from the Nice massacre?

Alain Soral grants an interview to Jérôme Bourbon for the French political review Rivarol

Founder and president of Egalité et Réconciliation since 2007, Alain Soral is a talented, loquacious and atypical character who pulls no punches and speaks his mind. Whether one entirely shares his views and his analysis or not, it is always interesting and intellectually stimulating to hear him talk. This is why we are devoting a few columns to him in our summer edition at a time when the international and national situation is especially “intense” while making it clear, as we do for all our interviews, that his views are, of course, entirely his own.

What are your thoughts on the terrorist attack in Nice which took place on the 14 July on the Promenade des Anglais?

I had announced that there would probably be another terrorist attack similar to that of the Bataclan. I had even said that it would not take place during the European Championship but afterwards and that would take place on the beaches. Some have retorted that it wasn’t on the beaches, which proves that they have a poor knowledge of France and its geography.

There are several interpretations of this event: a fatalist interpretation and an interpretation which is more conspiratorial … What is clear, is that there are people who want the “clash of civilisations” to take place. And it has to be said that they are doing everything to make it happen and that it is going to be increasingly difficult to stop it. It is obvious that the oligarchy which governs the country is relying on a confrontation between communities.

Consequently, it is difficult to imagine that the intelligence services and the government are working effectively to prevent terrorist attacks. I even think that this climate of tension and insecurity, which allows them to push ahead despite being totally unpopular, is in their interest. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Manuel Valls) is very open about this when he said there will be more terrorist attacks, that they cannot be prevented and that we have to learn to live with them.

The question which always needs to be asked in such a case, aside from asking where the money comes from (the terrorist sent 100 thousand euros to his family in Tunisia a few days before the attack), is the following: who benefits from the crime? I believe that Israel, to which Valls is eternally attached, is the agent with the most to gain from this conflict of civilisations between Muslims and Christians and encourages it by every possible means.

And France, unfortunately, is today entirely under Israeli domination, governed by its will and its programme. When Netanyahou tells us that we will be subject to further terrorist attacks if we do not support their policy on the Palestinians, that the situations we are facing are identical and that their role is to guide us in this struggle, he is making threats just as much as he making predictions.

As long as our leaders remain completely beholden to Israel we will not be able to fight effectively against immigration or Islamic terrorism, bearing in mind that the two issues are inextricably linked, especially given the recent immigrant phenomenon…

Indeed, we are only now taking action against ISIL because Putin got involved in the Syrian issue, forgetting that the French state had organised and supplied weapons to all those radical Islamic armed groups and supported the immigration policy which allows terrorists to come into the country today.

Now, I don’t believe that our leaders are just stupid and incompetent. They are rather slaves to an ambition and a programme that surpasses them and makes them traitors to the nation and criminals. And this programme is Israel’s. Israel’s two objectives and priorities are Aliyah and Greater Israel. Push Jews in France to immigrate to Israel and justify Israeli expansionism.

Of course, if there were no Muslims in France there would be no radical Muslims to recruit and manipulate. But let’s ask ourselves some questions: why has there been uncontrolled immigration, when it is no longer economically necessary, ever since the government gave immigrants the right to bring over members of their family?

Why is there a desire to turn immigrants into social outcasts, rather than French citizens, by an effort to denigrate France, a job carried out by Trotskyist teachers: France is portrayed as a colonialist country, full of collaborators, slave traders, cowards and bastards…? Why for forty years has everything been done to put us in the situation that we find ourselves in today, a situation which wasn’t inevitable?

Another point: Charlie Hebdo, the Bataclan and Nice are all totally under Israeli control. Verify who Estrosi is, what the Bataclan was and what Charlie Hebdo has become ever since Philippe Val took over… This escalation, I believe, corresponds to a programme.

We learnt that the Tunisian who committed the murderous attack in Nice drunk alcohol, didn’t pray, didn’t go to the Mosque, didn’t observe Ramadan, and wasn’t known by the security services. In this case, can we seriously talk about radical Islam?

When I say radical Islam, I’m using the official term. But one of the French intelligence chiefs recently revealed to us that out of the fifty highest ranking members of ISIL not one of them belonged to the world of radical Islam and that most of them were former Iraqi officers recruited by the Americans. And, pretending to be a slightly dim, he added that the situation was impossible to understand, most likely to avoid coming to the logical conclusion of his reasoning!

In fact, the lower ranks, the so-called djihadis who more or less willingly blow themselves up, are thugs spawned from the SOS-Racisme ideology. They are petty criminals who have come from prison and ended up in the hands of intelligence agents.

From Mohammed Merah to the Kouachi brothers, we systematically find the same profile: psychologically unstable and suggestible post-adolescents; they are very from pious Muslim adults. Here we are clearly dealing with operations similar to what we saw in the US during the 60s with Oswald.

For me, the key reference is September 11 and the Twin Towers: a joint operation between Israel and the American deep-state in order to establish the New World Order. What we are seeing today in France is just the French component of the programme. And as it accelerates, everything becomes clearer and more violent.

Why do you think the programme is accelerating?

At the moment, we see that Erdogan is allying himself with Putin, no doubt because he realises that his submission to the NATO empire could mean that he ends up like Saddam Hussein. We also see the rise of Donald Trump in America, even though he wasn’t the desired Republican candidate, because he’s an isolationist who follows the tradition of Lindbergh. Indeed, we can bet that he will soon be accused of anti-Semitism just like the famous aviator was. We are also experiencing the rebound of the 2008 banking crisis from which we have never recovered, the collapse of the financial system directed and caused by Wall Street.

Faced with this, my analysis has always been the same: the globalist oligarchy has every interest to add an ethnic dimension to the economic and social crisis, relying, admittedly, on a phenomenon which already exists: civilisations which have for a long time now been in competition and, indeed, have been conflict in the past. But, looking at history, the current confrontation between these communities is no way inevitable. Decolonisation was, in a way, the result of secularisation, Marxism even: the pan-Arab movement, Arab nationalism…

It was not inevitable that radical Islam would emerge, any more so than Hamas would take over from the PLO. It was even against the flow of history if the American-Zionist imperial power did not intervene following the collapse of the USSR and the disappearance of the useful communist enemy. All this was artificial, exploited and deliberate. But faced with the determination of the imperial oligarchy and its power, it is going to be very difficult to avoid falling into the trap. The trap of a total war: both civil and global.

Via the television and the press, everything is done to fuel hatred and tension between the communities : when the dolls of dead children are displayed on the Promenade des Anglais with a great show of emotion and without any in-depth analysis, the average French citizen, who has already suffered the effects of thirty years of economic decline and imposed immigration, which he didn’t want and which has given him nothing, other than a loss of cultural standards, social dumping and crime (all you need to do is look at the prison population), the French citizen, I do believe, comes to point where he can no longer accept anti-racism and political correctness.

And when they talk to him today about radical Islam, he doesn’t think about the imperial manipulation of ISIL and terrorism, which has been proven many times ever since Al Qaida, but about the Arab youths of the suburbs – who no longer practise the Islamic faith any more than we practise the Catholic faith – and his legitimate anger makes him forget the proletariat immigrant worker, the good and pious father who was brought up with right-wing social values and with whom we could have many points in common, to the point where all he wants to do is attack “rag-heads” as they do in Gaza.

But the system and those who control it in France have completely manufactured these thugs from the suburbs by means of the liberal-libertarian ideology and institutionalised anti-racism. Their identity is defined by the American ghetto. We have encouraged these young drop-outs to fight in Syria, we trained them in warfare, we armed them. All this is verifiable. We even made sure that they were brought back whereas we could have let Assad’s army get rid of them for us. So what is happening to us is entirely more than predictable, I would even go so as to say it was planned.

It is time to have the courage to say it: there are people who benefit from the chaos in France, and those people are neither of French origin nor are they normal, everyday Muslims. It is chaos that benefits neither the Christian minorities in the East nor those who are in war-torn Arab Muslim countries. Who benefits from this? The financial oligarchy which is concealing a financial crisis behind ethnic conflict in order to divert popular anger, and Israel whose project is to build Greater Israel. These two entities are, indeed, inextricably linked.

Alain Soral was interviewed by Jérôme Bourbon, editor-in-chief of Rivarol

Interview translated from French

Source: Egalité et Réconciliation


Hervé RYSSEN: The Eschatological War – End Times in the Great Religions

The author Hervé Ryssen grants an interview to Jérôme Bourbon for the French political review Rivarol

Your ninth book has been published this week. This time you look at eschatology. Could you first of all explain to us what eschatology is ?

To put it simply, eschatology is the study of “end times”. In the three great monotheist religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – there is the belief that our world was created by God but that one day it must end. Catastrophes, wars and all sorts of terrifying prophecies are found in each of the great traditions as well as in ancient Aryan tradition and in Nordic mythology. From the ultimate war against the forces of evil, a new world will be reborn, from which the non-believers and heretics will have been banished. We find the same pattern every time.

What have you learnt from your research ? Given the close relationship between the three religions, can we say it’s possible to conceive a common future?

Eschatology teaches us precisely that the three religions are incompatible with one another for the very simple reason that their visions of the future differ on one particular and fundamental point : in the end, one – and only one – must triumph. The others must convert (in the case of Christianity and Islam) or quite simply disappear. Indeed, the Jews do not have this desire to convert the others to Judaism. The propaganda of Jewish intellectuals (what they say, their films, their novels, etc) consists of discrediting among non-Jews the idea of religion, race, homeland and any feeling of belonging in order to elevate the Jews above the mass of goys. Once all the nations have been destroyed and transformed into multi-cultural societies, once all the religions have been annihilated, and once a world government has been established – probably after a world war – an “absolute and final” peace will reign on earth, according to them. It is then that their much awaited messiah will come. The Jews will have kept their traditions and so will be recognised by all as being “God’s chosen people”.

But Jewish supremacism is no exception. The Muslims also seek to dominate this world.

There is, indeed, in Islam the idea that the whole world must submit and accept the message of the Holy Prophet. But, as I was saying, it is a question of converting others and not destroying them. Islam is not a closed sect, like Judaism, but is an open and universalist religion, similar to Christianity for that matter. But we must not forget that the Koran mentions several times the idea of fighting the infidel, with weapons if necessary, which does give me an uncomfortable feeling around the neck!

Certain French patriots believe that, faced with the rise of Islam in Europe, the Jews, or certain Jews at least, can be allies. What’s your opinion on this?

For some ten years now, we have seen a handful of Jews, who were at one time fervent supporters of immigration, turn their guns and transform themselves, magically, into super French patriots, “more French than the French”, ever since they realised that all those Muslim immigrants, whom they helped to get into the country, are not necessarily their friends.

Moreover, the rhetoric against “Islamic fascism” (Bernard-Henry Lévy used the term fascislamisme as early as 2006) is a way of mentally preparing people for a war against Iran, a country which does not threaten the French in a way at all, but which is an obstacle for the Zionist state in the Middle East.

So this fallacious rhetoric is a confidence trick. As far as we are concerned, we are totally opposed to mass immigration from the third world, regardless of whether the immigrants are Muslims or not.  And from an international point of view, we completely support Syria and Iran as well as all the other countries which oppose the Western-Zionist axis. Let the Jews fight their own wars for a change !

How do Muslim theologians envisage the end of this battle between the Western world and Zionism ?

Theologians, such as Imran Hosein, have perfectly understood that the “Christian” West is today very much Jewish owing to a constant stream of cosmopolitan propaganda in the media. “Abortion, homosexuality, lesbianism, adultery are all legal today…” he writes.  He quite rightly says that the Europeans “have become Jewish”. He also vehemently condemns moves by the West to establish a world government. For him, in any case, things are very clear : God punished the Jews with a Babylonian army ; he punished them a second time with a Roman army; the third punishment will be a Muslim army, only this time it will be for real!

As for the Christians, who have not been able to protect themselves from Jewish nihilism, they will be obliged to stop venerating Jesus as if he were God and “will be forced to recognise him as a prophet”. Here we can see a difference in tone between the Muslims, who recognise Jesus as a prophet, and the Jews who, in the Talmud, insult Christ and consider that he is the son of a prostitute and a Roman solider. In Muslim eschatology, Jesus is sometimes considered to be the “Mahdi “(he who is guided by God), who will defeat the Anti-Christ at the end of time. For the Muslims also have the idea of an “Anti-Christ”. They call him the “Dajjal” and, as in Christianity, the Anti-Christ, who will persecute the faithful before finally being defeated, will come from the Jewish sect, which is hardly surprising!

According to you, what are the differences between Christian eschatology and Muslim eschatology?

The essential difference is that the Muslims, like the Jews, believe in a triumph in this world, whereas the Christians, in particular the Catholics, seem to have renounced all idea of a victory in this world. Catholic eschatology is not clear, to tell the truth, and does not stir people into action in the same way as eschatology does for the Jews or for the Shia Muslims, who strive to bring the messiah to this world. A very small number of texts suggest the evangelisation of all nations, the Church’s “sixth age”, which precedes the great apostasy, as described by Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser. We read that, in the following age, that of the Anti-Christ, “the only victory possible for the Christians in these terrible times will be to be defeated, persecuted, tormented and put to death, while remaining true, faithful and resolute”. This is revealing. We see that Christians are morally defenceless and that they are turned into martyrs, whereas they could have been heroes.

La Chute des anges, illustration de Georges Chastellain, Miroir de mort, 1470, Bibliothèque municipale, Carpentras.

‘The Fall of Angels’ – Georges Chastelain, 1470

In the Conciliar Church, in accordance with the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the eschatology is even less galvanising. This time, the Church seems to have taken up the cause of Judaism. It must be humble and seems to be waiting impatiently for world government and the reign of the Anti-Christ! What about the conversion of Jews? This is postponed for the end of time and is never due to the evangelical zeal of Catholics. There is therefore no messianic activism. “Nobody will miss our gothic cathedrals”, fruit of our “pride”, writes a theologian with the authorisation of the diocese of Paris. We really do get the impression that there is a death wish. In such circumstances, therefore, it is not surprising to see our enemies gaining ground while we retreat.

What of the pagan “Weltanschaung”  ? Could you tell us a little about this?

The pagan world is generally based on an eschatology which is very pacific. It is very easy to understand why. For decades, the intellectual leader of this school of thought, Alain Benoist, has continued to trot out the idea that pre-Christian history in Europe was cyclical and not linear, and all the adherents of this movement, following him, have repeated ad nauseam Nietzsche’s phrase: “We must not hold back what must fall, but push it”. This means that, quite naturally, a number of militants within this movement believe that the best thing to do is to watch this civilisation die and even encourage its demise, as they are convinced that a new cycle will begin once everything has been destroyed. They no longer even realise that, at the end of the cycle, the white man will be dead and buried and they will have left the door open to their enemies.

The “traditionalists”, who are less political in their way of thinking, are followers of René Guénon and Julius Evola. According to this school of thought, history is a long decline, a gradual separation from the “Primordial Tradition”, and this has been the case for tens of thousands of years (or for several hundreds of thousands, depending on the many different interpretations!)

Following the Golden Age, there was the Silver Age and then the Bronze Age. We are today in the fourth and final age, the Iron Age, which has lasted for more than six thousand years, but which will soon come to an end and complete the great cycle. Do you all not feel tired? We have to wait for it all to end, asserts Julius Evola; it is absolutely futile to attempt to do anything to fight against the tide of decline!

With this mind, we understand better why the Jews and the Muslims are in the ascendant! Everything comes down to eschatology.

Aside from that, in the third chapter I give some ideas which will, I think, allow readers to understand the workings of the psychological war which we must fight. In short: for us, to doubt is tantamount to betrayal!

Hervé Ryssen was interviewed by Jérôme Bourbon, editor-in-chief of Rivarol

La Guerre eschatologique is published by Baskerville (April 2013, 192 pages)

Interview translated from French

Source: http://herveryssen.hautetfort.com/la-guerre-eschatologique-entretien-avec-herve-ryssen.html

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.
*See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/sep/10/20010910-025319-6906r/
**See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0

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.

Could Algeria be the Next Target?

It really is bad news. Bernard-Henri Lévy (BHL), the sinister theorist of the “Arab Spring” who has destroyed Libya, Syria and Yemen, now intends to apply his horrific model to Algeria.

How exactly? By using the Movement for the Autonomy of Kabylie (MAK). Its call for a demonstration in Paris has just been relayed by BHL.


The latest edition of his magazine “La Règle du Jeu” includes a long article on the celebration of the Berber Spring but not in a way that commemorates this event. BHL is a war-monger, so he is genetically incapable of promoting peace. His destructive instinct naturally leads him to support movements and sects whose aim is to provoke insurrection in their countries.

And this is precisely what he is attempting to do in Algeria via the MAK by publishing in his magazine an announcement made by their “provisional government” calling for a demonstration in Paris.

BHL has written an article, entitled “The Kabyles : An Unrecognised Population in Algeria”, in which he calls for people to support the demonstration in favour of “the autonomy of Kabylie”. He writes “the Kabyles are campaigning for the recognition of their rights in Algeria and for a secular society” and stresses that “some Kabyle friends have asked us to publish the call by the provisional government of Kabylie for a demonstration in Paris this Sunday, 17 April. We are all the more happy to do this because the aims of the demonstration, as specified in a short document sent to us, appear legitimate to us”

Such concern for humanity ! There are grounds for being wary of this dangerous liaison between the MAK and BHL because he has powerful contacts in the French government and elsewhere. Ferhat Mehenni’s MAK is “a good client” which will allow him to get closer to Algeria, a country which he still hopes to see join the ranks of those countries brought to heel in the same way as Libya.

BHL’s support for MAK is definitely bad news for both Kabylie and Algeria. He is not motivated by the ideals of Ferhat Mehenni’s group. He is motivated by Zionist ideology and by racism against Muslims in general. A quick look at the editorial board of his magazine will soon convince anybody of the sinister aims of “the man in the white shirt”… stained with blood.

On his editorial board, we find all the Zionists in the French media such as Armin Arefi, Hélène Brenkman, Eric Dahan, David Gakunzi, Raphaël Haddad, Patrick Klugman, Patrick Mimouni, and Yann Moix, to name but a few. BHL, who was invited as a VIP to Algeria during the 90s to support the government in its fight against terrorism, now comes to support a separatist movement which is opposed to the Algerian government…

By totally disregarding his contradictions, this warlord can cry crocodile tears for “the Kabyles, a people without a nation, just like the Kurds, who oppose what they call Algerian colonialism.”

In his magazine, he publishes MAK’s notice calling “French Kabyles and all Kabyles” to march and demonstrate in homage “to the Kabyle civilians killed during the Berber Spring of 1980″ and “the 128 Kabyles killed during the Black Spring in 2001”.

This testifies to his obsessive desire to provoke civil unrest in Algeria. But not just in Kabylie. BHL also has compassion for the “Mozabite political prisoners who have been locked in Algerian jails for nine months and whose fate has been met with total indifference the world over”.  While examining BHL’s support for MAK, one cannot help but conclude that vigilance is more than ever necessary in order to defeat his determined attempts to destabilize the country.

Translated from French

The original author was Rafik Benasseur

Source: Algérie 1.com


Zionism and the Clash of Civilisations

Interview with Youssef Hindi, author of  “The West and Islam”, an extraordinary work on the origins of Zionism and the nebulous neo-conservative theory of the so-called “clash of civilisations”

Using reliable sources to support his arguments, Youssef Hindi, a Frano-Morrocan historian, traces the roots of Zionism back to the messianic projects developed during the 13th century by rabbis and Kabbalists.

Aux origines moyenâgeuses et fumeuses du sionisme

In your book, you advance a new theory regarding Zionism. Could you briefly explain it to us?

The main theory of my book is as follows. Contrary to popular belief, Zionism is not an atheist ideology; nor was it created by the English Puritan movement during the 17th century as certain historians, such as Shlomo Sand, believe.

Zionism was from the very beginning a messianic project, created by rabbis during the Middle Ages. This project was developed and consolidated throughout the centuries to the point where it took on an atheist form, in a similar fashion to a number of modern ideologies dating from the 19th century.

This is not the only argument I put forward in this book. This messianic ideology which gave rise to Zionism also led to the strategy of the “clash of civilisations” and the creation of the myth of Judeo-Christianity, which dates from the early 16th century.

That these projects were born during the Middle Ages is one thing. But how do you explain the fact that they have managed to survive over the centuries? What’s more, how did these religious ideas come to take on an atheist appearance? Is this not a contradiction in terms?

Throughout the book, I illustrate the following key point which is not immediately obvious when one reads the book for the first time: the fact that ideas in history are updated. History is driven and animated by ideologies and ideas which are created, transformed and then spread. These ideas are born in people’s minds; they then guide people as well as the groups to which they belong: history is made by the groups led by these ideas.

Moreover, I construct my arguments very carefully, step by step, using a range of reliable sources. I highlight the coherence of the project, over seven centuries old, by carefully showing the links between the series of important, and often unknown, events which decisively changed the course of history.

Jewish messianism went through a period of transition between the end of the 17th century and the 18th century with the Sabbatean-Frankist movement. This messianic movement, which was both apocalyptic and antinomic (opposing God and natural law), was created by the false messiahs Sabbataï Tsevi (falsely converted to Islam) and Jacob Frank (falsely converted to Catholicism). It led the way to an atheist form of messianism which then gave a non-religious appearance to the vast messianic project. It was from this movement that the utopian libertarian and socialist revolutions of 19th and 20th centuries were born. During the same period, Zionism in its non-religious form appeared in Central Europe, which is exactly where the atheist revolutionary movements multiplied.

So what about the “clash of civilisations” theory ? You say that it is linked to messianism and Zionism. By attempting to link everything to this messianism, are you not speculating?

The “clash of civilisations” is by no means a theory: it is a strategy. My research shows that Solomon Molcho, who was a Kabbalist, developed this strategy in accordance with the rabbinic and eschatological interpretations of the Bible. During the 16th century, he attempted to push first the Catholic Church and then the Holy Roman Empire into a war against the Ottoman Empire, the idea being to drive out the Turks from Palestine, thereby allowing the reconstruction the Kingdom of Israel.

This is precisely what the British did at the end of the First World War. They dismantled the Ottoman Empire and created the Jewish homeland in Palestine (1919-20) following the promise they had made to the Zionists in the Balfour Declaration (1917).

Molcho’s project took four centuries to come to fruition, but it was finally accomplished. This is one of form evidence that I use as a means of showing the durability of the Zionist project and the intrinsic link that exists between Zionism and the “clash of civilisations” strategy, the latter being a prerequisite to the achievement of the Zionist project (see article on the Oded Yinon plan https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/youssef-hindi-war-in-yemen/).

In 1957, Bernard Lewis*, who influenced Samuel Huntington†, removed the religious element from this messianic strategy by giving it a scientific appearance, in order to set it up as theory. As a worthy heir to Molcho, Lewis decrees that the (post) Christian world and the Islamic world are, by their very nature, destined to confront each other in a war. It was Bernard Lewis who, from the year 2000 onwards, strove to convince Vice-President Dick Cheney that the US should invade Iraq.

This “clash of civilisations”, conjured up from nowhere, basically conceals what I term “a global ideological conflict” between the Old Testament world (covering the Anglo-Saxon thalassocracy, its former Catholic vassals on the European continent, the Wahhabi oil monarchies and Israel) and the rest of the world.

* Bernard Lewis is a Jewish historian who holds British, American and Israeli passports.
† Samuel Huntington, author of “The Clash of Cvilisations and Remaking of World Order”

Article Translated from French

Youssef Hindi was interviewed by Gilles Munier, author of the “Black Gold Spies” (see https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/07/spies-of-the-black-gold/).

Occident et Islam“, is published by Editions Sigest, http://editions.sigest.net/

Source: France-Irak Actualité


See also: Youssef Hindi discusses his book with Jean-Michel Vernochet (we have provided English subtitles).

Assad – Portrayed as Tyrant to Serve Western Interests

Interview with Fahad Al Masry, member of the Syrian opposition and coordinator of the Syrian National Salvation Front

Fahad al-Masri


The US and Russia have intensified their military efforts in Syria with the help of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG). Do you think an end to the crisis is now near?

You must remember that during the ISSG meeting, held last May in Paris, there were many disagreements, caused by the difference in Russian and American policies. This also led to the creation of two different groups: one supported the US and Russia, while the other supported Europe, led by Germany and France (and also included Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar). They created a European, Arab and Muslim coalition; the dozen or so Arab and European countries which formed the Group of Friends of the Syrian People continues to declare its support for the opposition.

This situation is due to Obama’s disastrous Middle East policy which left Russia free to intervene in the conflict, while sidelining Turkey and the Gulf countries. This split within the support group can be clearly seen because, during the Paris meeting, there was tension between the Europeans (France and Germany) and the other countries.

There are a number of unresolved issues, even if all parties claim that the target date for political transition is a real goal. The Vienna talks aimed to strengthen relations between the partner countries and to rebuild alliances which had became too narrowly focused during the Paris meeting.  Russia, an ally of Bashar al-Assad, reported in early May on active negotiations aimed at bringing an end to the conflict in Aleppo.

Moscow, however, had warned that it did not intend to put pressure on Damascas to stop carrying out air strikes on the city, even though that’s what had Washington’s demanded. All these alliances and disagreements make the Syrian issue very complicated. An alliance, or several alliances even, within the same support group does not necessarily help attempts to find a resolution to the crisis. The post-Geneva period is only just beginning, and the hope is that we do not go down the road of a Geneva V, Geneva VI…etc

The United States does not see a future for Bashar al-Assad in Syria, it is one of their priorities: remove him from power. What’s your opinion on this matter?

As Lakhdar Brahimi once put it, Bashar al-Assad is finished. This declaration can be justified given that Bashar al-Assad had supported the Iranian and Russian attacks on civilians demanding freedom and respect.

History will remember that Obama was the worst American president ever because his policy pushed Syria and the entire region into endless conflict. From the beginning, Washington severly criticised Assad’s policy. But while Assad was free to transgress all limits, the US did nothing but interfere in our internal affairs rather than finding a solution to both the conflict and Bashar al-Assad.

The image of Bashar as a tyrant merely served the interests of certain world powers who aim to destroy our country and destabilise the entire region to serve interests beyond our own. Syria is not the only target. This strategy of destruction targets other countries, too, in particular the countries in Northern Africa, such as Algeria.

Do you think that recapturing Rakka from ISIL could have an impact on other towns in the country?

The liberation of Rakka is important and, without a doubt, constitutes a defeat for ISIL. The international media distracted us with “the destruction of archaeological sites” in order to conceal an international illegal trade in archaeological treasures, supported by both the Syrian and Iranian government.  By destroying a country’s memory, you destroy its future. The other problem in Rakka is that the US had brought Kurdish militia forces into Syria to help liberate the city. We can now expect a civilian massacre.

Translated from French

The original author was Faten Hayed

Source: France-Irak Actualité



How should we deal with the Islamic State?

nationalThe terrorist attacks in Paris on 13 November opened the eyes of those who still refused to see the following fact: France is engaged in an internal and external war against the Islamic State. But one question remains: what should we do?

The Paris terrorist attacks demonstrated that France is now inextricably tangled in the geopolitical crisis triggered by the Islamic State group. What’s more, the fact that there is large Muslim population in our country means that internal stability and our very institutions are directly targeted by this new form of international terrorism.

The Islamic State may well be a proto-state, but it governs a territory. And it commands terrorists outside of its borders: some of the terrorists came from Syria, as confirmed by a report written by the Swiss Prosecutor General’s Office, recently published in the press.

Its considerable financial means come from local racketeering, the sale of oil, and the smuggling of art works. Its stock of weapons – from Iraq – is equal to that of neighbouring states and the danger is that one day it could obtain chemical weapons. The aim of the Islamic State is to create a Middle Eastern “caliphate” which will then be expanded to include every Muslim country.

Of course, its troops have recently suffered defeats on the ground, notably against Kurdish and Iraqi troops. But it clearly continues with a double strategy. An offensive strategy of territorial expansion, which is currently focused on Libya and which, ultimately, will target Saudi Arabia, which is currently fragile and remains ambiguous vis-à-vis the Islamic State.

There is also a defensive strategy aimed at preventing any foreign intervention on its territory. This first took the form of an asymmetric war, which was at the origin of the Islamic State, lead by former Sunni Muslim Iraqi soldiers who led a revolt following the American and British occupation of the country. This was a victory for them as they had thwarted American plans for Iraq, with almost every single American soldier leaving the country before it regained stability.

A terrorism that takes on many forms

This asymmetric war then took on the form of international terrorism. The attack on a Madrid train station (in Atocha – 190 people killed) in 2004 triggered the electoral defeat of the conservative President Aznar and led to the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. As for the Paris attacks on the 13th November, they isolated France within the EU, many members of which believed that Paris would have been better advised not carry out air-strikes on Islamic State positions.

This is precisely the desired aim: pressurise Paris into abandoning military intervention. Added to this is the fact the Islamic State can only profit from Europe’s state of shock faced with the mass influx of refugees and the radicalisation of certain young Muslims who will leave the country to join the ranks of the Islamic State terrorists.

This form of terrorism is therefore multifaceted: in its indigenous form, it finds its human resources in our suburbs; in its international form, the Islamic State uses terrorism to blur the national boundaries by terrorising the local population, using rigourous logic and theological arguments to discredit the opposition and, through repeated attacks and repression, gaining the support of certain populations.

What can we do ?

Faced with the Islamic State, two priorities must guide French efforts : domestic security and the stabilisation of not only the Middle East but also North Africa and the Sahel. For the whole of the Sunni Muslim world is at stake, and we must take this together as a whole. The situation has become so bad that the option of non-intervention advocated by some (which was probably the best option for Iraq in 2003 and which, without any doubt, would have been the best option for Libya in 2011) is now an inadequate response to the threat posed by the Islamic State.

We must, therefore, concentrate our forces and divide those of our adversary. From the French point of view, the most urgent priority is to find allies. We need to acknowledge that our strategic interests coincide with those of Russia and Egypt but are at odds with those of Saudi Arabia and Turkey and are different from those of the United States, which still believes that its main opponents in the region are Russia and Iran.

In the Sahel region of Africa, France cannot disregard cooperation with Algeria, even if relations are complicated. The risk is to repeat the same sort of mistake made during the Cold War by making the war against the Islamic State the focal point of relations. There are local opposition movements that can be exploited, whether it be between Sunni groups or regarding the Kurds. The situation needs to be assessed in a strictly objective fashion.

Action abroad and action at home

The fact that this conflict takes on a form hitherto unseen means that there must be a precise coordination between action taken abroad and action taken at home.

Abroad, we must concentrate on the main enemy – and it is not Bashar Al-Assad! – and divide any other enemies.

First: target the vulnerable resources of the Islamic State (the transportation of oil, the sale of stolen art works, international financial transactions).

Secondly: rely on the support of Shia units in the region in order to drive back Islamic State on the ground, as the Kurds will refuse to intervene beyond the limits of their territory. In addition, the Kurds further complicate Western relations with Turkey, a Sunni power which is becoming increasingly “Ottoman”.

At home, a draconian but precise anti-terrorist policy is vital: this policy must prevent any Muslim solidarity with the terrorists, while taking into account both the foreign and domestic aspects of the strategy.

For the moment, Paris can work on two specific problems: stop the systematic opposition to Assad (we have already discretely began to do this) and look again at the Tuareg issue which existed before the problem of Islamic extremism in Mali.

A balanced policy

Looking ahead, how could the situation develop ? We know that the United States and its allies, in particular Saudi Arabia, are determined to create a Sunni state in the Middle East. On the other side, Iran (Russia’s ally) and Iraq together with the different Shia groups, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, intend to form a Shia confederation, geographically smaller in size than that of its rivals. Indeed, Iranian plans are regional in nature, whereas the Sunni project stretches from the Atlantic to Central Asia.

Aiming for a balance between these two key groups is in the interest of France even if, as is likely, the borders inherited from the First World War and the end of the Ottoman Empire will not survive the crisis. Moreover, with the help of Russia and Egypt, the second strand of this differentiated strategy should aim at allowing religious minorities – notably Christians, the Druzes and the Alawites – to stay along the Mediterranean coast, within range of aircraft carriers, in states such as Lebanon and Syria, and both countries should be encouraged to ensure that they come to no harm.

As for the United States, they will continue to guarantee Israeli security in the last resort. But as long as Jerusalem does not accept a state solution to the Palestinian issue, any attempt at reconstruction or stabilisation of the Middle East will fail sooner or later.

Regarding the growing threat to Libya by the Islamic State group, the solution is the same as that for the Sahel region: cooperate with Egypt and the North African countries whose leaders are directly threatened by the Islamic extremists.

The road will be long and difficult. It will demand a constant review of the organisation of the security services and armed forces, by finally admitting the much contested notion that security and defence are inextricably linked.

Translated from French

The original author was Georges-Henri Soutou, Professor of Contemporary History at Sorbonne University, Paris.



See also: Interview with the author (source TV Libertés)

English subtitles available