Masonic Zionism with Joe Atwill

Masonic Zionism with Joe Atwill - WORD UP with Dani Katz (November 27, 2024).

In this podcast author Joseph Atwill provides a very informative breakdown of the Freemasonic origins of Zionism. He touches on the role played by Palmerston and the British ruling class in creating this movement in the 19th century to the detriment of historic Judaism, the Jewish people, and the peoples of the Middle East.

I myself have to check myself and remind myself that the Jewish people have been victimized, brainwashed, and bamboozled by these evil demons. 

The symbolism of Israel and the story of the Bible have been utilized by Freemasons with great success in the West, and also in the Muslim world. 

Let's not forget that the Muslim Brotherhood is a Masonic organization. The mother organization of ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and all these terrorist offshoots is rooted in Masonry. 

Netanyahu can claim all he wants that he financed Hamas. Very well, good for him, that's counterinsurgency politics 101. 

Staging the October 7 attacks isn't high level realpolitik but basic police tactics. After police commit a murder they plant evidence at the crime scene to lay blame on the deceased victim. It's the same thing Mossad does with the Palestinians. 

These creatures aren't genius criminals.

It wasn't Mossad who created Hamas. They have the Masons to thank for that. It wasn't Mossad who brought the Ayatollahs to power. That was the work of the CIA and MI6. When they found out the Shah had cancer they threw his ass to the curb.

Netanyahu can boast all he wants. Let him boast.

But give credit where credit is due. Netanyahu is not some evil mastermind. He plays the role of a bossman, pointing fingers and giving lectures, but when real war came to his house this year he hid like a rat. 

That's all he is. A big fat rat.

His masters are the same.

The Question of Zionism And Its True Origins + The Strange Persistence of Ukrainian Nazis

Is Zionism an Anglo-Germanic-Protestant-Occult project or a Jewish-Nationalist-Socialist-Rothschilds one? 

We must remember that Nazi Germany politically partnered with the Zionists throughout the 1930s to intimidate and drive out well-established European Jews into the Holy Land and the ancient lands of Israel. 

It doesn't matter what religion, ideology, or race theory that Hitler professed, what matters is his regime assisted in the creation of modern Israel. The Zionists were using the Nazi's race-based political program to achieve their own ends; to settle Israel with successful and wealthy Jews, demonize Europeans, and manufacture an atmosphere of distrust between Jews and Europe.

Only after the usefulness of the Nazis expired and they lost the war came the accusation of the Holocaust, which served as a political and moral justification for the State of Israel and gave it spiritual legitimacy in the eyes of the global public at the time.

But let's leave aside the question of the Holocaust. It obviously didn't happen. There's no evidence for it. But let's just dig deeper into the ties between the Nazis and the Zionists.

How close were these two sides politically and ideologically? Were they talking behind the scenes? Were they coordinating even before Hitler came to power in 1933? Were they only interested in finding common ground about the emigration of European Jews to Israel? Or were there other issues that they mutually agreed upon?

This legacy is important and has to be understood because it is alive today, especially in Ukraine, where Jews in political and military leadership are sending Ukranian Nazi youth to their doom against a Russia that is now supposedly Orthodox Christian and left behind all traces of its Communist ideology.

Why would Nazis fight against Christians? I thought their whole purpose was to defeat Communism and the Soviets. What has made these Ukranian Nazis hate Russia so much? Historical grievances can only motivate one so much.

I wouldn't be surprised if most of these Nazi soldiers are given drugs to dull their critical faculties and turn them into killing machines. We saw that with ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria. 

Hate and drugs can be a powerful combination for any soldier, whatever his/her background or designated enemy.

The Protestant Prophecies: Britain, Prussia, And Palestine In 1840

Related:

Squaring The Circle In Syria For Two Centuries.

The Return of The Ottomans? Syria's Collapse And The Coming Pogroms.

The Evolution of Political Football In Jerusalem.

Political Intrigue In The Holy Land Two Centuries Ago.

Power Follows Justice, or How The British Supplanted The Ottomans.

Jonathan Parry - Promised Lands: The British and the Ottoman Middle East.

Another Excerpt From Jonathan Parry's "Promised Lands" - On The Geopolitical Value of Cyprus And Egypt.

An excerpt from, "Promised Lands: The British and the Ottoman Middle East" by Jonathan Parry, Princeton University Press, 2022, Pg. 227 - 232:

By June 1841, Friedrich Wilhelm's aspirations had coalesced into a new and more plausible plan: a joint Anglican-Lutheran bishopric of Jerusalem. This would symbolise the fellowship between the two Protestant churches, would give them crucial political weight and institutional presence at Jerusalem, and would allow them to take the fight to papal missionary activitv in the East and eventually to Islam. It would provide Middle Eastern Protestantism with a recognised episcopal head who could reach out to other Churches, would give weight to the Anglo-German LJS mission, and would encourage German Lutherans to appreciate the merits of episcopalianism. The as yet unbuilt Anglican church in Jerusalem would be a purified temple for a "national and universal Christian foundation." Friedrich Wilhelm IV sent Bunsen to Britain that month to persuade the archbishop of Canterbury of the idea. 

He needed no persuasion. Archbishop Howley, and Bishop Blomfield of London, had already been thinking hard about a bishop for the Middle East. This was part of their concern to build the Church's global role, which was threatened both by the papacy and by internal challenges. At home, it was under pressure from Dissent and from the Liberal government's preference for loosening the Church-state partnership after the pluralist constitutiona reforms of 1828-32. In the 1830s, legislation was introduced making some of the historic revenues of the Church of England in Ireland and in Canada available for the needs of the non-Anglican majorities there. So the Church was now very conscious of the need to rely on its own resources to raise its global profile. The episcopal structure was weak in the colonies, and Howley and Blomfield did not trust voluntary missionary activity to spread sound religious doctrine there. In the course of the 183os, the diocesan structure in Canada, India, and Australasia was extended, but this was known to be just the first step needed in a strategy of stronger local organisation throughout the empire, headed by bishops. Howley and Blomfield began a major campaign for colonial bishoprics, building on the public mood in Britain in favour of Church defence, which was reviving the fortunes of the Conservative party. Ashley, Lindsay, and the young William Gladstone were among the Tories active in it. This led to the founding of new bishoprics in New Zealand, Tasmania, Guiana, and Antigua in 1841-42.85 An indication of the growth of Anglican enthusiasm for global evangelising activities at this time is shown by the increase in the annual voluntary income of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, which had been £1,459 in 1821 and £7,402 in 1831, but rose to £44,318 in 1841 and £84,909 in 1851. The income of the CMS, which had benefited much more from the enthusiasm of the 1810s and 1820s, rose from £39,814 in 1832 to £90,305 in 1842. Average yearly LJS income was £12,687 in the 1820s and £30,020 in the 1840s.

Blomfield definitely intended this global mission to include the original Christian heartlands of the Middle East, where Anglican activity lagged so far behind that of Roman Catholics. His appeal of April 1840 for new bishoprics envisaged the day when the Church of England would "be recognised, by all the nations of the earth, as the stronghold of pure religion, and the legitimate dispenser of its means of grace: and will be a chosen instrument in the hands of God for purifying and restoring the other branches of Christ's Holy Catholic Church." In October 1838, Ashley had already floated the idea of a bishopric at Jerusalem, linked to Malta and the existing Anglican chaplaincies around the Mediterranean.

In July 1840, just after the signing of the Treaty of London, Howley and Blomfield sent George Tomlinson on a mission to the Levant. He was Howley's former chaplain and secretary of the Church's senior outreach society, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK). The three men hoped to build on increased public interest in the Ottoman Empire, and to create connections with the historic Churches of the East. After Tomlinson returned, they proposed that an Anglican bishop, based in Malta, should coordinate this activity around the Mediterranean, and in April 1841 Blomfield connected this idea with the colonial bishopric campaign. In December 1840, Howley pressed the government to secure toleration for Christians as well as Jews in the Ottoman Empire, particularly so that the ancient Churches of the East could maintain their independence from aggressive Roman missions. One of the particular objects of Tomlinson's journey was to make contact with the bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church and to urge more cooperation in the circulation of printed Bibles in Greek, Arabic, Turkish, and Armenian throughout the region. This would be facilitated by the current political understanding between Britain and Russia. Tomlinson argued that, as Anglicans could not beat the Greek Church's local strength among Orthodox laymen, they should work with it: "the only rational---and, as it appears to me, the most Christian---way of improving their spiritual condition, is to support and improve their own institutions."

So when Bunsen arrived in London in late June, he found that the Church hierarchy was very keen on his idea of a Protestant bishopric of Jerusalem. The Germanophile Queen Victoria shared this view, and terms were settled. Nomination to the post would alternate between Britain and Prussia, but the archbishop would be able to veto the Prussian nominee. A Lutheran candidate would have to receive Anglican ordination. The government passed the legislation necessary to allow a bishop of the Church to minister in a foreign country and to be a foreign subject. The king of Prussia gave half the endowment necessary to pay the bishop's stipend; the British portion was raised by voluntary means, superintended by four lay trustees.

The territorial remit of the Bishopric of Jerusalem was agreed to be the heartlands of Christianity in 500 CE: Palestine, the rest of Syria, Chaldea, Egypt, and Abyssinia. So it complemented a Malta-based Mediterranean bishopric, which was created in 1842. The latter had to be called the Bishopric of Gibraltar since the British government had already acknowledged a Roman Catholic bishopric of Malta, but its Malta base signified that its jurisdiction would reach through the eastern Mediterranean, as far as the British embassy in Constantinople and the consular chapel in Smyrna. It therefore fell to the bishop of Gibraltar to liaise with the Greek Church around the shores of the Aegean, in the way that Tomlinson had foreshadowed in his 1840 report. Unsurprisingly, Tomlinson was appointed to the Gibraltar see in 1842, by Peel whose children he had tutored.

The Jerusalem episcopate was founded on the principle of cooperation with the Syrian, Nestorian, and Coptic Churches---rather than challenging the authority of their patriarchs, which the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem did. The bishop was also told to be on good terms with the Greek Church, and Howler appointed George Williams as the bishop's chaplain in that particular hope. Howley's official "Statement of Proceedings" described the bishopric's object as to secure "relations of amity [with] the ancient Churches of the East, strengthening them against the encroachments of the see of Rome, and preparing the way for their purification." By setting forth pure Christianity in Jerusalem for the first time, it also promised to help the "desultory efforts" so far made for the conversion of Jews. "The hand of Providence" could be seen in the recent events in the Ottoman Empire that had allowed Britain and Prussia to open a door for "the advancement of the Saviour's kingdom, and for the restoration of God's ancient people to their spiritual birthright."

In other words, the Jerusalem bishopric represented both main facets of Protestant religious interest---most immediately, to reach out to the Churches of the East, but also to promote the welfare of Jews in whatever ways might become practicable. In Jerusalem itself, however, its creation strengthened the impression that the aim of Britain and Prussia was to play the game of sectarian Christian rivalry. The Spanish minister assumed they would press for a separate millet for Protestants. The French consul in Beirut feared that Britain would attempt a protectorate over the Maronites. When the first bishop, Michael Solomon Alexander, a converted Prussian Jew who was professor of Hebrew at King's College London, arrived in early 1842, he faced so much antagonism from the existing denominations that Hugh Rose, the consul-general in Syria, had to get the Ottoman government to guarantee his protection. "All are more or less, I regret to say, against him." Aberdeen, the new Tory foreign secretary, was conscious of the need to pacify the other powers and the Ottomans over his appointment. In May 1842, he reminded Alexander, who was known to have a particular interest in the conversion of Jews, that he was forbidden to proselytise. His jurisdiction was merely spiritual, so he could not offer British protection to any Ottoman subject whom he might convert. In any case, Alexander could not reach out to the European Jews, since Russia, through Bardaki and Bazili, continued to protect them- and Bazili was upgraded to be consul-general in Syria in 1849. In the autumn of 1842, three Russian Jews who were being tried by Bardaki for an offence wanted to escape his jurisdiction. They took refuge with the LJS missionary Ewald, claiming to be interested in Protestantism. Bazili demanded that they be handed back; Young supported his request. Alexander refused to do so, but eventually had to give in. Relations between Young and Alexander never recovered, and Rose had to make clear to the latter that to give asylum to Jews who were subject to Russian authority violated international law.

In January 1844, Young lashed out at religious people in Britain who imagined that his role as consul in Jerusalem was "to shape a course in order to meet the views of a popular reading of Prophecy" about Jewish restoration. They needed to "regard the actual condition of these Countries" and understand "the real position and wants of their present inhabitants," or else they would damage Britain's cause, and the Jews, by stirring up hostility from Latins and Greeks. When Alexander died suddenly in November 1845, the LJS mission in Jerusalem had only made thirty-one converts. There was now a clear gulf between its aspirations and the priorities of the British government. When Thomas Tully Crybbace travelled from Stirling to London to advocate the return of the Jewish nation to Palestine, he was drily told by the head of the Foreign Office that this matter did not come "under [our] cognizance."

The British government continued to try to uphold Jewish rights in more practical ways. In April 1841, at Ponsonby's suggestion, Palmerston issued a circular to British consuls in the empire that they should watch for cases of oppression or injustice to Jews and report them to local authorities and to Constantinople. He reminded them that in the Edict of Gülhane the Porte had pledged to protect the legal rights of all its subjects; moreover, the sultan had issued a special firman guaranteeing Jewish civil rights after his meeting with Montefiore in November 1840. Palmerston had also wanted to get special assurances from the Porte for European Jews settling in Palestine, because he thought that they would not otherwise risk their capital. However, Ottoman ministers (and Ponsonby) had argued that that there was no evidence that this was required, and that it would create awkward precedents and tensions. In fact, there was hardly any sign of European capital investment.

Bishop Alexander's clash with the Russians also further delayed the attempt to build the Protestant church in Jerusalem. Despite the lack of permission for construction, a foundation stone had been laid, but then local complaints prevented further digging. In February and August 1841, Palmerston got Ponsonby to press the matter at the Porte, finding it difficult to understand how, "at a moment when the whole of Syria has so lately been restored to the Sultan by the powerful interposition of Great Britain, so small a favour as this could be refused to the British Government upon grounds of a pedantic adherence to Mahomedan doctrines." Construction began again, but permission was still unforthcoming. After the affair of the Russian Jews, the local governor pointedly stopped the work in January 1843.

As sectarianism increased, the Ottomans were becoming more adept at playing the powers off against one another. Other European powers felt the need to set up consulates in Jerusalem: Prussia in 1842, France and Sardinia in 1843. Moreover, in 1842, the Greek Orthodox patriarch of Antioch sent a delegation to Russia to seek material and moral support against intensified Catholic and Protestant missionary activity in the region. As a result, an archimandrite, Uspenski, was sent on a tour of Syria and Palestine in 1843-44 to find ways of strengthening the Orthodox position. In 1845, one visitor to Jerusalem observed that "in a paltry, inland, eastern town, without trade or importance of any kind, sit the five consuls of the great European powers, looking at each other, it is difficult to say why or wherefore."

Bishop Alexander's personal history gave him a particular concern with the Jews of Palestine. However, for many churchmen at home, the primary anxiety about the East continued to be the threat from Roman Catholicism. This led to Britain becoming entangled with both the Druze and the Nestorians. In each case, the original cause was the zeal of local American Protestant missionaries.

Dollars Talked, Once. . .Now Only Blood Will Be Heard

"Iran's religious clerics enjoy overwhelming power and influence over the majority of the Iranian population. This is the case for two reasons. The first being Islam is a politico-religious system that blends the realities of the secular world with the holy. The second reason is the traditional role of the religious community in Shia Islam who serve as interpreters of the Quran and hadith and perform essential services for the community. For many Iranian people, the word of their Ulama members is law and since there were a significant number of these religious elites who were involved in the coup, of which there may very well have been more than we have record of, their contributions towards the outcome is immeasurable. I therefore conclude that the 1953 Coup D’état in Iran would not have been possible without the direct participation and complicity of Iran’s religious leaders backed by the leadership, guidance, finances, and organizing abilities of the United States Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA needed the Ulama, just as much, if not more than the Ulama needed the CIA. Were it not for the “grey” and “black” propaganda of the CIA, financial bribes offered by them, the fake phone calls to the clerics by the Tehran station, the destruction of certain Mosques, and the creation of street demonstrations, all involving and motivating the Ulama to act, the outcome in Iran may well have been a very different one. Had the CIA not had the direct or indirect cooperation of the Ulama in Iran, Mossadeq may have stayed in power, the Shah may have never had the chance to become a dictator much to the detriment of Iran’s people for 26 years. It is then conceivable that the 1979 fundamentalist Iranian Revolution, headed by Ayatollah Khomeini, would have never gained traction or been necessary in the first place. 

Perhaps the most valuable information that is provided from studying the 1953 Iranian coup is the blueprint created by the CIA and MI6 that would be replicated time and again the world over. The CIA would go on to create a pattern of covert regime change in countries all around the world. Starting in Guatemala only one year later in 1954, the CIA began an operation known as PBSUCCESS where they successfully removed the democratically elected President Juan Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán and installed military leadership which lead to the deaths of over 100,000 Guatemalan citizens. The CIA then moved on to the Congo in 1961 where they facilitated the removal of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba and the implementation of a pro-US leader. Then again where the CIA took part in creating the conditions which lead to the 1973 Chilean coup which removed President Salvadore Allende and replaced him with the brutal dictator Augusto Pinochet. Indeed, as of early 2019, all the signs and symptoms of US backed regime change are present yet once again in Venezuela. The US continues to use economic warfare through sanctions and by pressuring allies into not dealing with Venezuela in order to force their hand, seemingly, and once again, for an opportunity to control their most valuable resource: oil." - Anthony Lucey, an excerpt from, "Iranian Ulama & the CIA: The Key Alliance Behind the 1953 Iranian Coup D’état" History In The Making, Vol. 12, Article 8, January 2019.

The war in the Middle East has delivered the goods. So far, at least. There's still ways to go. But it looks promising.

American bases are being destroyed left and right. Iranian clerics assassinated in the middle of the night. Israelis running for the hills like they're supposed to. Arabs causing chaos from Yemen to Morocco cause they have nothing better to do just like they used to do. Turks making moves, pretending to be a great empire once again. Even the Pakistanis are poking their heads through like a dying fish gasping for water.

It is great theater. It is great drama.

There was a time when the U.S. achieved its political and strategic ends with dollars alone. Backdoor bribery. Really shameless stuff. Sexual blackmail. Obscene propaganda. All the dirty tricks.

Victory came cheap.

No more of that nonsense. 

No more bribes. No more dollars. No more propaganda. 

No more cheap victories.

Now there must be blood. And lots of it. 

Now there must be an all out war. 

Iraq and Afghanistan did not tame this oligarchical beast. It didn't bleed enough. It didn't learn. 

It must bleed a lot more for it to learn.

And it will bleed until it sees the errors of its ways, until it throws the Zionist Jews out of its capital like the worms they are, until it begs for forgiveness for all the wars, coups, assassinations, sanctions, and needless bloodletting it has caused since the end of World War II.

Why America's Hands In Iran Are Tied

"In the event of an open confrontation with Iran—given the strain on American forces and the downside of air strikes or naval bombardment—the U.S. military’s greatest asset will be its unconventional warfare capabilities. The best military strategy will focus on creating an environment in which unconventional warfare can flourish within Iran. The theme here is capacity building, and Iran’s restive populations—its ethnic minorities, student movements, human rights groups and regime opponents—should be at the center of the military’s attention. An opening level of engagement with domestic groups will lead to an evaluation of each group’s capabilities and potential. Once assets are identified, they should be taught, mentored and supported to act on their own behalf and in the interests of their own country. Lines of communication and avenues of cooperation will be important to creating a baseline capability flexible enough to be adapted to a range of potential future scenarios." - "Confronting Iran: U.S. Options" Convened by: American Foreign Policy Council and McCormick Tribune Foundation, August 2007, Pg. 18.

"In travelling eastwards across the vast lowlands of central and upper Mesopotamia, one sees in the distance a great mountain barrier. These are the mountains of Kurdistan, the beginning of the Iranian Plateau, rising abruptly like a wall beyond the Tigris. Few geographical features demonstrate more graphically just how distinct Iran is, culturally and geographically, from the lands of the Near or Middle East to its west. Behind stretches the level plains of the Tigris-Euphrates basin and the Syrian desert further west, interrupted by the Anti-Lebanon and Lebanon ranges before meeting the Mediterranean. This is the Arab world of today, the world of the great ancient civilisations of the Semitic Near East. But ahead is a very different world, a world of high mountains and upland plateaux, of long winter snows and winds coming out of Inner Asia: Iran is more a part of 'High Asia' than of the conventional Middle East' further west. Its people speak languages unrelated to those of the Semitic Near East, and although today they share the same religion (Islam), Iranian Shiism is different to the mainstream Sunnism practised by most Arabs. In reaching this mountain barrier one senses the traditional 'Middle East' to be left behind: the Iranian Plateau is where Central Asia begins.

The Iranian plateau is mostly between 100 and 2000 metres high, dominated by the Alburz mountains in the north and the Zagros in the south-west; in Iran one is rarely out of sight of mountains. The two mountain ranges meet in a knot towards the Caucasus mountains in the north-west. This latter region, known as Azerbaijan (the Republic of Azerbaijan further north is an extension) is one of the hilliest and best watered parts of Iran. The country remains hilly and well watered further south-east following the Zagros ranges, through Kurdistan, Luristan and Fars, but in the extreme south-west it opens out into the low, flat plains of Khuzistan (ancient Susiana or Elam), an eastward extension of the lowland of the Tigris-Euphrates river basin of Mesopotamia. The Zagros range becomes more arid further south, plunging abruptly in places into the Persian Gulf, isolating the plateau from the sea and leaving only a very narrow, arid coastal strip. The Alburz ranges to the north isolate the Caspian littoral from the central plateau in a similar fashion. The Caspian coastal plain, however, could not be in more contrast to the Gulf: the combination of its altitude several hundred feet below sea level with the barrier effect of the Alburz ranges has provided an enclosed, humid, greenhouse environment of dense rain forest, rice fields and tea plantations. To the east of the Caspian, where the Alburz gradually peters out, the country opens out into the high, wide pastures of the Turkmen steppe and Khurasan. Between the two ranges of the Alburz and Zagros lies the bulk of the Iranian plateau, a largely level area of plains and semi-desert (although interrupted by low ranges of hills throughout), gradually giving way to the great deserts of sand and salt in the central and south-eastern parts of the country (the Dasht-i Kavir and the Dasht-i Lut). This region contains some of the great cities of Iran, such as Tehran and Isfahan, and a string of caravan cities---Yazd, Kerman, Bam----skirt the southern edges of the desert towards the south-east. The eastern parts of the country are generally far more arid and desert-like--although still very hilly--merging into the desert regions of Seistan and Baluchistan. In the deserts of Seistan, however, have been found traces of some of the earliest civilisations in Iran, civilisations about which very little is still known.

Culturally, the civilisation has spread over a considerably greater area than the modern boundaries of Iran itself, reflecting the fluctuations of different Iranian empires throughout history. Regions as widely separated as parts of the Balkans and the Black Sea in the west to India in the east, and the Aral Sea in the north to southern Arabia in the south have at different times been ruled by various Iranian dvnasties. More immediately, adjacent parts of Mesopotamia and Central Asia can be said to come under the cultural orbit---a 'greater Iran'. Hence, important works of Persian architecture can be found in Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan.

At the same time, the present boundaries of Iran incorporate minorities from all surrounding regions---indeed, the ethnic makeup of Iran is one of the most varied in Asia. The largest community in Iran, after the Persians themselves, are the Azerbaijanis to the north-west whose language is close to Turkish; another Turkish dialect is the language of the Turkmen to the notth-east as well. The hills and valleys of the Zagros to the west and south shelter a variety of other minorities: Shahsavan to the north-west, a semi-nomadic group who speak a dialect of Turkish; Kurds and Lurs to the west, two distinct, mainly sedentary groups whose languages are related to Persian; and the great nomadic nations of the south, Bakhtiari, Qashqai and Khamsa, who are of Persian, Turkish and Arab origin respectively (with considerable admixture). Arab communities are also to be found in Khuzistan to the south-west as well as along the Persian Gulf coast; in the far south-east the population is Baluch, who speak a language distantly related to Persian.

Iran has also been home to numerous religious minorities, often for thousands of years. The oldest are the Zoroastrians, examined more in Chapter 7, but there is also an ancient Jewish population dating from the time of the Persian Empire. The largest Christian community are the Armenians, who mainly arrived after the sixteenth century (although Armenians were in Iran in the Sasanian period), but there is also a small community of Assyrian Christians, descendants of the Nestorians expelled from the Bvzantine Empire. There are also Muslim minorities: the Arabs, Turkomen and Baluch are mainly Sunni, and there are several Sufi schools. Smaller religious communities are the Ahl-i Haqq in Kurdistan and the Mandaeans in Khuzistan, distinct religions that incorporate elements of Gnosticism and Manichaeism. Another distinct religion that emerged in Iran in the nineteenth century was the Baha'is, although these are not recognised by the present government and have mainly moved abroad. The idea of a world transcending political and ethnic boundaries, therefore, is inherent in the nature of the country itself and its history." - Warwick Ball, "Towards One World: Ancient Persia and the West" Olive Branch Press, 2011, Pg. 14 - 16.

 

The Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto famously said, "I would never invade America, there is a gun behind every blade of grass."

This social reality, combined with America's favourable geography, are reasons for its superpower status. Take the guns away and you take away American supremacy in world affairs. 

The Satanic globalist elites running America have attacked American gun culture and imported millions of immigrants who don't prescribe to the same culture to weaken and ultimately destroy this key pillar in American power. 

Without guns "behind every blade of grass" America would cease to be America. It would morph into a new entity.

Guns and geography are what made America what it is. America was blessed in that its founders valued arms even more than the land.

Some countries are blessed simply with rugged geography that makes it hard for invaders to gain a foothold. Afghanistan is famous for its mountains. Iran is another. There's a mountain at every pass. 

Foreign armies advancing in Iran have had to resort to mass killing the population of entire cities in order to usurp power, and terrify the country into submission. Over time mountains became sanctuaries and converted to military bases.

The United States cannot invade Iran like it did in Iraq and march all the way to the capital in one afternoon. Iraq, after years of war and sanctions, was in no condition to put up a fight. Attacking a wounded prey is not glorious. Every American general who participated in that slaughter should be stripped of his medals.

Iran is another story. They're itching for a big war. Every medal in this war will be earned.

But how to invade Iran? That is the question.

Earlier this year Israel tried to persuade the Trump administration to invade Iran from Iraq, using the Kurds as bait and cannon fodder. 

But that plan fell flat on its face. After the Kurds in Syria were shown the door by Israel, America and the West, making way for the former Al-Qaeda terrorist to take Damascus, that card could not be played again. It was shocking that they even attempted it.

The Kurds could be used to good effect in Syria and Iraq because those are small, artificial political nation states. Using the Kurds in Iran and Turkey for similar regime change operations was always a bad idea.

Any invasion of Iran must happen through four corridors simultaneously, not just from one side with lightly armed guerillas. Those regions are Baluchistan in the South East, Azerbaijan in the North, Kurdistan in the West, and from the Persian Gulf itself. 

The recently announced Turkey-Pakistan-Saudi Arabia military alliance, all of which are American and Jewish slaves, has the potential to provide the needed troops to invade Iran. 

Under American-British-Israeli supervision these troops can serve as the shock troops. They can do the heavy lifting and the majority of the dying. 

The governments of these nations can be bribed and coaxed into invading Iran if they believe it sufficiently weak. That won't be a problem. The only question is would Muslims fight a Muslim army and kill Muslims?

As we've seen in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, the answer is yes. 

The Sunnis don't view the Shia as Muslims so they won't have a problem with killing them. They see it as settling a score. 

Of course, this is all wishful thinking. The armies of Pakistan and Turkey would have to get through Afghanistan and Kurdistan first. I don't think they're capable of doing that. But the crazies in Washingdon and Jerusalem will try everything at this point. They're capable of anything.