Something strange is taking place in central Asia around Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India. It is a big game under the false name of “War on Terror” – a terror which started on 9/11 of 2001 with what many think was an insider job However, the intention is to control all mankind – the real enemies of the New World Order.
The Grand Chessboard is a strategic plan to secure US world domination by encircling Russia/China. The plan was launched by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the adviser to 5 US presidents, and Obama´s mentor, or rather his (Ras)putin. It is “A blueprint for world dictatorship,” said a former German defense and NATO Official who warned of global domination in 1984.
In “The Grand Chessboard – American Primacy And It’s Geostrategic Imperatives”, published in 1997, Brzezinski declare that the energy and geopolitical centre of the Earth today is Central Asia and the Middle East. Brzezinski sees Eurasia as the centre of the world – necessary for the USA to dominate, if the US wants to rule the world, keeping any rival away.
In chess, you cannot win the game, unless you control the centre. The same is true in the attempt to introduce world government. For this purpose, the domination of Central Asia is a must.
These are the very first words in the book: “Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power.”- p. xiii. Eurasia is all of the territory east of Germany and Poland, stretching all the way through Russia and China to the Pacific Ocean. It includes the Middle East and most of the Indian subcontinent. The key to controlling Eurasia, says Brzezinski, is controlling the Central Asian Republics.
Brzezinski sets the tone for his strategy by describing Russia and China as the two most important countries – almost but not quite superpowers – whose interests that might threaten the U.S. in Central Asia. Of the two, Brzezinski considers Russia to be the more serious threat. Both nations border Central Asia.
In a lesser context he describes the Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iran and Kazakhstan as essential “lesser” nations that must be managed by the U.S. as buffers or counterweights to Russian and Chinese moves to control the oil, gas and minerals of the Central Asian Republics (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan).
The plan, which was to start a chain reaction in the Middle East to oust the Shah of Iran (by means of the Muslim Brotherhood); the riots were then to swap onto the Soviet Union, was presented by the Jewish historian, Bernard Lewis, to the the Bilderberg meeting in 1979, and accepted there.
America’s basic strategy against the Soviet Union, during the Cold War of the last half of the 20th century, involved the Iran-Contra Operation, by which illicit funds were procured from the sale of narcotics in order to finance the Mujahideen of Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, coordinated by Saudi Arabia.
The first stage of this strategy was to install a puppet regime in Iran that would serve American interests. This was accomplished in the person of the Ayatollah Khomeini. As Robert Dreyfuss described, the impoverishment of the Third World was a deliberate policy of British colonialism, in which it employed corrupt regimes like that of Saudi Arabia, and radical terrorist cults like the Muslim Brotherhood.
The explosion of violence throughout the Middle East, in the late seventies and early eighties, was not something which occurred by chance, but was the result of a deliberate plan developed by the Illuminati strategists, such as Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and British operative Bernard Lewis.
In 1979, Bernard Lewis attended a Bilderberg meeting in Austria and contributed to the discussion of “Muslim Fundamentalism”. The Bernard Lewis Plan is the code-name for a top-secret British strategy for the Middle East. Lewis’ Plan endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote the “Balkanisation” and fragmentation of the entire Muslim Near East.
Lewis argued that the West should encourage nationalistic upheavals among minorities. The result would be, in Brzezinski’s terminology, an Arc of Crisis. Brzezinski, who served as National Security Advisor during the Carter administration, believed that global dominance was dependent on the control of the numerous states of Soviet Central Asia. Brzezinski had, in turn, been seduced by Bernard Lewis into believing that Islamic fundamentalism could be played as a “geo-strategic” card to destabilise the USSR.
This strategy would be achieved by employing all the covert means made available through Illuminati channels, and with the CIA again exploiting the services of the Muslim Brotherhood, to foment revolution and deface the image of Islam. Despite all their posturing as defenders of orthodoxy, the Muslim Brotherhood were using the pretext of seeking to implement the global “caliphate”, or global Muslim rule, to seek the destruction of Middle Eastern societies, to conspire with the Illuminati towards the implementation of a New World Order, based on occult principles.
The project preoccupies Russia much and has been seen as a possible forerunner of WWWIII – possibly already planned. What worries Russia now is the British plan to make the Middle East an “Arc of Crisis”. The forces behind this plan, which is far from dead, are still the same: the Bilderbergers, the Club of Rome, Brzezinski and the CIA.
America’s “Deep State”. From the JFK Assassination to 9/11
Peter Dale Scott, one of the most perceptive and provocative political-historical thinkers of our time, addresses in this podcast interview the Deep State in the United States and the common patterns of the two great events in American history in the last fifty years that were deep events and had constitutional changes as consequences – the JFK assassination ’63 and the terror attacks of 9/11.
“nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”
Containment of the Soviet Union
November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union
In December 1978, President Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski says, “An arc of crisis stretches along the shores of the Indian Ocean, with fragile social and political structures in a region of vital importance to us threatened with fragmentation. The resulting political chaos could well be filled by elements hostile to our values and sympathetic to our adversaries.” [Time, 1/8/1979]
There is widespread discontent and rioting in Iran at the time. State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea “that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets.” [Scott, 2007, pp. 67]
In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an “arc of crisis” and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.
The Shah will later comment in exile, “I did not know it then, perhaps I did not want to know? But it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted. What was I to make of the Administration’s sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.” [Engdahl, 1992]
While there is later debate about US policy towards Iran actually is at this time, it will be noted that the Carter administration had “no clear policy” due to internal divisions and confusion. [Keddie, 2003]
The Shah abdicates on January 16, 1979, and Ayatollah Khomeini returns from exile to Iran on February 1, 1979, taking over the government. Brzezinski will attempt to create a de facto alliance with Khomeini’s new fundamentalist government. At first the US is taken aback by the new fundamentalist Islamic government, and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski contemplates fomenting a military coup to stop Khomeini. But Khomeini is fiercely anti-communist, and Brzezinski soon decides that Iran’s new government can become part of an effective anti-Soviet alliance he calls the “arc of crisis’ (see November 1978-February 1979).
The rise of ISIS planned at a meeting in the Jordanian capital of Amman
ISIL seems to represent the latest phase in a far more complex and long-term “strategy of tension” in the region; being employed by the Anglo-American-Israeli Axis to ultimately divide and conquer the Middle East and Central Asia. The aim is destabilization of the region, subversion and acquiescence of the region’s countries, and control of its economies, all in the name of preserving the West’s hegemony over the “Arc of Crisis.”
It has emerged that the recent ISIS assault on Iraq was planned at a meeting in the Jordanian capital of Amman.
According to the Özgür Gündem newspaper, the secret meeting was attended by the KDP and Ba’athists and took place with the knowledge of the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Turkey on 1 June, 8 days before the attack on Mosul began.
The article in Özgür Gündem has exposed the forces behind the Iraq plans of ISIS. According to the article, the ISIS plan to capture Mosul and advance on Baghdad was formulated at a meeting in Amman on 1 June.
The meeting was attended by many influential organisations and figures in the world of Middle East politics.
The Özgür Gündem newspaper based its story on a copy of the document shown to their correspondent by a diplomat with years of experience in the Middle East. The diplomat told the reporter that the document had been sold to Iraqi officials for $4 million.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdad – a product of the US, Israel and Britain?
Now, it seems that Abu Bakr al-Baghdad is the product of the US, Israel and Britain. For a man so mysterious that there are only two known photographs of him, it was a brazen public debut. The most wanted man in the Middle East, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is also one of the most elusive, an evanescent figure behind the Islamist insurrection sweeping the Syrian and Iraqi interior.
According to various media sources, Abu Bakr Al Baghadi, the infamous self-proclaimed Caliph of the Islamic State is not actually who he claims to be or even stand for.
As it happens Al Baghdadi was arrested back in 2004 by U.S. troops in Iraq. According to Department of Defense records, al-Baghdadi was held at Camp Bucca as a ‘civilian internee’ by U.S. Forces-Iraq from early February 2004 until early December 2004, when he was released.
A Combined Review and Release Board recommended the ‘unconditional release’ of al-Baghdadi and there is no record of him being held at any other time. But according to other sources al Baghdadi was only released in 2009, thus exposing Washington’s lie.Army Colonel Kenneth King, the commanding US officer at Camp Bucca in 2009, recently told the Daily Beast that he distinctly remembered Al Baghdadi: “He was a bad dude, but he wasn’t the worst of the worst.” King noted he was “not surprised” that such a radical figure emerged from the facility.
So why would the U.S. State Department lie about Al Baghdadi’s release?Now according to information leaked by the former employee of the US National Security Agency, Edward Snowden, Al-Baghdadi is the product of three intelligence cooperation. Snowden claims the Agency – CIA- in cooperation with British counterparts and the Institute for intelligence and special tasks Mossad paved the way for the emergence of State of Iraq and the Levant.
Snowden has explained that the U.S., Israel and Britain aimed to create an Islamic radical movement of immense violence, capable of attracting the worst of extremists from all over the world on one place in the process symbolised the hornet’s nest to justify military intervention and use such cover to eliminate all those who pose a threat to Israel.
A leaked documents showed the national security agency, that last the old British plan known as the hornet’s nest to protect Israel, to create an Islamic slogans religion consists of a set of provisions that rejects any thought or another rival.This technique was actually first tested with Al Qaeda back in the late 1980s when the CIA helped Ossama bin Laden set up his Jihadists army against Russia.Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi emerges from shadows to rally Islamist followers
Brzezinski on Ukraine
Russia has neither the right to protect its national interests nor the right to be different. A regional power, enclosed in its rigid bounds, Russia is unable to establish viable alliances with leading global players. It should give up its vain hopes of some mythical Eurasian Union development. Its only alternative is to take the role of the Western civilization humble satellite. So thinks an old US hawk Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former National Security Adviser and a prominent geostrategist.
“President Barack Obama needs to articulate clearly to the American people, and very soon, that the Ukraine crisis is the most important challenge to the international system since the end of the Cold War.
It is more than a month since the Russians annexed Crimea, and recent events have only exacerbated the crisis, with pro-Russian rebels reportedly shooting down two Ukrainian helicopters in separatist-held Slaviansk on Friday. Yet the president still hasn’t laid out a comprehensive statement of what is really at stake: why we are facing this problem; why it is in our common interest to resolve it, with the Russians if possible; and why, if negotiation does not work out, we have an obligation to help Ukraine.
Above all, the president must clarify why we cannot tolerate an international system in which countries are invaded by thugs and destabilized from abroad. And why this is a common responsibility not just for us but for our allies and other friends like the Chinese, whose stake in stability should be as great as ours.”
“Let me try to discuss the implications for the European security architecture of the Ukrainian problem in the relationship of Russia and the West. What we are seeing in Ukraine, in my judgment, is not a pique but a symptom of a more basic problem: namely, the gradual but steady emergence in Russia over the last 6 or 7 years of a quasi-mystical chauvinism. Putin has taken the lead in this and its content is significant for the totality of Russia’s relations with the world, and the West in particular.”