# Ioan Ratiu. Islamization

Ioan Ratiu

Chapter 10 from Ioan Ratiu's book "The Milner-Fabian Conspiracy", 2012.

To the contents of the book. Download in Word format. Mobile version.


lslamization or Islamification is the transformation of non-Islamic into Islamic or Islam-dominated society.


Content

Why is Islamization a problem?

The Islamization of Britain

The Islamization of Europe

The 1973 Oil Embargo and the "Euro-Arab Dialogue"

International Finance, Politics and Islam: The Conspiracy of the Century

Pompidou and Rothschild:

Willy Brandt and Rockefeller:

The Rothschild-Rockefeller connection:

The Socialist connection:

The Barcelona Process

The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

Solana and the War against Yugoslavia

The Dialogue among Civilizations

The Anna Lindh Foundation

The Alliance of Civilizations

The Mediterranean Union a.k.a. Union for the Mediterranean: the march from Dialogue to Union

Islamism, Jihad and the Islamic World Order

From Protest to Resistance

Notes

References


WHY IS ISLAMIZATION A PROBLEM?


There are many reasons why Islamization is a problem. The following is a selection:


1. Islam is a religion that is alien to Europe and has a long history of hostility to the West (Huntington, pp. 209-210; Lewis, p. 13).


2. Islam is incompatible with the principles and ideals of Western democracy. Traditional Islamic society is a form of religious dictatorship or, as described by Islamic scholars like Ayatollah Khomeini, "the rule of divine law (as interpreted by Islamic scholars) over men".


In consequence, according to Khomeini, Islamic government is based on Islamic Sharia law as found in the Koran and related writings known as Sunna while the only accepted legislative power is the god of Islam. Khomeini also declared that "to juxtapose 'democratic' and 'Islamic' is an insult to Islam" and "Islam is superior to all forms of democracy" (Algar, pp. 55, 337-8).


3. Islam is incompatible with Western culture. For example, wine and other alcoholic drinks, music, certain types of clothing, such as skirts, and food, such as pork - which are fundamental to Western culture - are unlawful in Islamic Sharia law (see the manual on Islamic law Umdat al-Salik, certified by the al-Azhar authorities in Cairo, quoted in Spencer, p. 46, Koran, etc.).


It follows that while a small, integrated Muslim minority would not be a problem, the spread of Islam beyond that would result in the erosion, suppression and disappearance of Western indigenous culture.


4. Islam is incompatible with Western religion whose scriptures and beliefs it rejects. For example, the Koran rejects beliefs that are central to Christianity such as the divinity, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ (al-Maidah, 5:75; al-Nisa, 4:157-8, etc.).


Similarly, it is evident from the writings of Church Fathers and later Church leaders like St John of Damascus, al-Kindi, Martin Luther and others that traditional Christianity does not accept Mohammed, the founder of Islam, as a true prophet, nor Islam (also referred to as "the heresy of the Ishmaelites") as a true religion (see Sahas, Muir, Luther, under References).


It follows that the spread of Islam represents the spread of teachings and practices that are contrary to Western religious tradition and is detrimental to the latter.


5. Islamization is being promoted by groups with an anti-Western agenda, such as Muslim fundamentalists, left-wing extremists and international financial interests.


6. Islamization is being enforced against the will and interests of the indigenous Western population who does not wish to live in a society dominated or ruled by Islam.


THE ISLAMIZATION OF BRITAIN


The rise of Liberalism in the 19th century began to erode traditional Western culture. In particular, Liberalism undermined the authority of Church and King on which the established social order was based. Liberalism's offshoot, Socialism, continued this process, leading to a breakdown of traditional culture.


In the midst of this cultural decline, alternative (fabricated) anti-Christian religions like Freemasonry and "Theosophy" began to proliferate. It was at that point that Muslim missionaries and agitators, with establishment encouragement, began to infiltrate British society. Many of these missionaries were connected with the Islamic revivalist Aligarh movement, led by Syed Ahmed Khan, the founder of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College in the city of Aligarh in India.


British orientalist and Islamic propagandistIn 1896, Khan's friend and collaborator Sir Thomas Walker Arnold wrote The Preaching of Islam and between 1921 and 1930 taught Arabic and Islamic Studies at the London School of Oriental Studies, later named School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).


In the 1930s, Khan's and Arnold's disciple Muhammad Iqbal, who became the leader of the All-India Muslim League, pioneered the idea of a separate Muslim state in India and collaborated with Fabian Society member Muhammad Ali Jinnah in the creation of Pakistan.


Another Islamic revivalist movement that sprung up at the time was the Lahore-based Ahmadiyya. In 1912, Arnold appointed the Ahmadi Kwaja Kamal-ud-din as imam of the Woking Mosque in Woking, Surrey.


Kamal-ud-Din established the Woking Muslim Mission which was instrumental in converting a number of Britons to Islam, including Lord Headly, who wrote A Western Awakening to Islam (1914) and became a Muslim missionary himself.


Sufism as a Trojan horse for Islam in BritainHowever, except among sections of the degenerate intellectual classes, traditional Islam failed to evoke wide interest in Britain. Therefore, Muslim missionaries and their British collaborators resorted to promoting "softer" brands of Islam, such as Sufism.


Sufism and particularly the writings of Iranian poet Omar Khayyam (said to have been a Sufi), had long been a favorite with Britain's left-wing elites. Nor was interest in Sufism, whether genuine or affected, always innocent.


Khayyam's verse "[shatter it to bits, and then] remould it nearer to the heart's desire" - used by Bernard Shaw as the Fabian Society's logo - was a hidden reference to the reconstruction of the world order in line with international oil and related interests: the Anglo-Persian Oil Company had been recently formed and, together with the Imperial Bank of Persia, marked the region as Milner Group territory. [*]


[*] My note.

The Milner Group is an influential faction of the British ruling class whose stated goals are:


1) to extend the power of the British ruling class throughout the world using supranational governing bodies such as the League of Nations, the UN and the United Europe;

2) to transform the United States into an instrument for achieving this goal,

3) to establish British control over the planet's key strategic mineral resources.


Andrew Perchard, Roy M. MacLeod & Jeremy Mouat, "British Empire in metals: Non-state actors and the political economy of imperial minerals, 1913-39" (26 Jan 2026) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00076791.2025.2606356

End of my note.


Curious publications like "A Pilgrimage to the Tomb of Omar Khayyam" (Travel and Exploration, London, Sept. 1909) by dubious characters like Percy Molesworth Sykes began to appear on both sides of the Atlantic, revealing the interests of the Anglo-American Establishment.


Muhammad Iqbal himself had been preaching a mixture of Sufism and Islamic revivalism. Sufism, along with Iqbal's writings, was promoted by British orientalists like Thomas Arnold of SOAS, Arthur John Arberry of SOAS (later Cambridge University) and Reynold A. Nicholson of Cambridge University.


In 1916, the London "Sufi Order of the West" was founded by the Indian Hazrat Inayat Khan, who taught that prophet Mohammed had brought a "divine message of democracy" (The Sufi Message of Hazrat lnayat Khan).


In the 1960s, Sufism and Islam were promoted by the Indian-born impostor Idries Shah and his left-wing British collaborators like Robert Graves and Doris Lessing, in addition to Left-dominated institutions like those mentioned above.


What becomes evident is that we are dealing with the systematic promotion of Islam by individuals and groups connected with shadowy organizations like the Fabian Society, representing political and economic interests that were unknown to the general public.


These groups were involved in shaping developments in South Asia, Iran and the Near East. For example, in 1921, High Commissioner Herbert Samuel (later Lord) - a close friend of the Fabian leadership and leading member of their Rainbow Circle club appointed Mohammad Amin al-Husseini Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Al-Husseini later played an important role in the Muslim Brotherhood, the Caliphate (Islamic State) Movement and the Arab League (see below).


Muslims in alliance with the Fabian Society create Pakistan

Meanwhile, Fabian Society member Muhammad Ali Jinnah in collaboration with Fabian International Bureau chairman and Commonwealth Secretary Philip Noel-Baker and Labour's Fabian Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin promoted the creation of Pakistan as well as the annexation of Kashmir to Pakistan (Curtis, pp. 3233).


In August 1947, Pakistan was created with Jinnah as Governor-General. In October, it invaded and occupied Kashmir. Soon after these events, substantial Muslim communities, particularly from Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir - all areas promoted by the Fabian/Labour combine - began to establish themselves in Britain.


The Fabian Society establishes a policy of Multiculturalism

In the 1960s, the same Fabian Socialist Labour Party under Home Secretary (and former Fabian Society chairman) Roy Jenkins, began to introduce policies replacing assimilation and integration of immigrants with state-enforced "cultural diversity" or multiculturalism, which also implied multireligionism. The main beneficiary of this was the rapidly growing Muslim community.


Muslim immigrants had already shown little interest in adopting British language, culture and religion (Joppke, p. 233). Labour's new multiculturalist policies only enabled them to become more assertive. In addition, the rise of oil prices in the 1970s created wealthy Islamic regimes like Saudi Arabia, which began to pump millions of pounds into the building of mosques and Islamic centres in the UK in the 1980s and 90s (Joppke, p. 253).


Government support, financial backing by oil-rich Islamic regimes, inspiration from Iran's Islamic Revolution of 1979, as well as guidance and support from Muslim fundamentalist groups like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood led to the rise of militant Islam. Muslim activists began to make demands such as the extension of the Blasphemy Law to include Islam; laws against religious discrimination; and state funding of Muslim schools.


The publication in 1988 of Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" was used by Labour leaders like Roy Hattersley and Jack Straw to side with the Muslims. While Muslim extremists were firebombing bookshops, Hattersley infamously claimed that expecting Muslims to behave like non-Muslims was "racist" (Joppke, p. 254).


Even the Church of England, which had long been infiltrated and subverted by the Fabian Left, sided with Islam. Its leader, the leftwing Archbishop of Canterbury, Robert Runcie, demanded a change in the Blasphemy Law to include Islam.


"New Labour" and state-sponsored Islamization

State-sponsored Islamization began in earnest with the coming to power of Tony Blair's "New Labour" in 1997, which began to promote a "new understanding" of Islam. In 2000, Blair declared that


"There is a lot of misunderstanding about Islam. It is a deeply reflective, peaceful and very beautiful religious faith and I think it would be hugely helpful if people from other religious faiths knew more about it" (Muslim News, March 2000).


Following the al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001, large amounts of tax-payers' money were ostensibly spent on "fighting Islamic extremism". In reality, most of it (about 90 million) went to groups linked to extremist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and its counterpart Jamaat-e Islami (Islamic Party) in Pakistan.


Other beneficiaries included the Muslim Council of Britain, the United Kingdom Islamic Mission (UKIM) and the Islamic Society of Britain. In an attempt to win Muslim votes, in Luton alone the Home Office project "Preventing Violent Extremism" funded seven Muslim centres ("How the Government pays Muslims to vote Labour", Daily Telegraph, 17 Mar. 2009).


In particular, more than 10 million were allocated to the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE), which aims to turn Britain and Europe into an Islamic state. Moreover, the Islamic Forum was allowed to infiltrate the Labour Party itself, becoming a secret party within Labour and influencing votes in favour of Islam ("Islamic radicals 'infiltrate' the Labour Party", Daily Telegraph, 27 Feb. 2010).


Other organizations which Islamic fundamentalists were allowed to infiltrate at will during the Labour regime were MI5, MI6, Scotland Yard and the Territorial Army. The same Labour regime also appointed Muslims as ministers, beginning with Shahid Malik in 2007.


Meanwhile, while Britain's political elites were promoting Islam, the Church of England -with a few notable exceptions like that of the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali (ironically, a Pakistani) -virtually surrendered to Islam.


In October 2003, the new left-wing Anglican leader, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams (appointed by Fabian Prime Minister Blair in July 2002) speaking at Chatham House, went so far as to declare that Islamic terrorists had "serious moral goals" (Bat Ye'or, p. 157).


Clearly, when even the Church takes a pro-Islamic stand, the Islamization process has advanced to a point where it has become almost unstoppable. If it is to be stopped, this will have to be done by the British people themselves, not by the treasonous political and religious elites (see pp. 361-6).


Islamic preacher Prince Charles

The promotion of Islamization in Britain has not been restricted to political and religious figures. The latter have enjoyed the support of other members of the Establishment, notably the Prince of Wales.


Prince Charles's well-known infatuation with Islam has given rise to fears that he may be a secret Muslim convert [*]. Indeed, closer analysis shows that such fears are not unfounded. His interest in Islam, which became public in the 1980s, goes far beyond the usual official pandering to Muslim interests.


[*] My note.

Fears that Prince Charles (now King Charles III) was a secret Muslim convert were not unfounded. In 1996, the Grand Mufti of Cyprus, Nazim Al-Haqqani, confirmed them, stating: "Did you know that Prince Charles has converted to Islam. Yes. He is a Muslim. It happened in Turkey."


Source: Rayhan Uddin, "King Charles III: Five things the new British monarch said about Islam and Muslims" (September 13, 2022) http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/king-charles-iii-five-things-islam-muslims

End of my note.


In 1993, Prince Charles gave a speech at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS), of which he is a patron. In his speech, he rejected the view that Islamic Sharia law - which prescribes public beheading, stoning to death and limb amputation for various offences - is cruel, barbaric and unjust as "unthinking prejudice" peddled by newspapers. In the same speech, he claimed that Medieval Islam was a religion of remarkable tolerance (Prince of Wales, October 1993).


Not only is it absurd to interpret the invasion of non-Muslim countries and their subjection to Islamic religion and culture as an act of tolerance, but this interpretation is contradicted by the historical evidence showing that Islam brought death, slavery and destruction to the nations it invaded and conquered. Moreover, such claims are an insult to the memory of those who died defending their country, their people and their faith against Muslim aggression, as well as of those who suffered, and continue to suffer, under Muslim occupation.


Speaking at OCIS again in June 2010, Prince Charles urged Western environmentalists to follow the Islamic approach to nature, describing the Islamic World as the custodian of mankind's wisdom and spiritual knowledge (Prince of Wales, June 2010).


Similarly, speaking at the opening of a new building at the Markfield Institute of Higher Education (MIRE), he played the old revisionist record on Islam's supposed contribution to the European Renaissance, after which he emphasized the need for the study of Islam (Prince of Wales, January 2003).


As holder of a university degree in history, the Prince ought to know better: by definition, the Renaissance was a movement inspired by Classical European (Graeco-Roman) culture (Oxford English Dictionary). Authentic European spirituality is firmly rooted in Classical and Christian tradition and has nothing to do with Islam (see p. 433 and note 1, p. 493). If any religion, apart from Christianity, qualifies for special royal patronage for its contribution to the Renaissance, it is Classical Paganism, not Islam.


Unfortunately, logic has never been something apologists for Islam would knowingly endorse. After all, Logic was one of the first "foreign sciences" which Medieval Islam, for reasons of self-preservation, chose to reject and suppress (this explains the logical - and moral - contortions of those who see Muslim aggression against other faiths as an expression of "tolerance").


Moreover, Prince Charles had the misfortune of being an alumnus of Milner-Fabian-controlled Cambridge University at a time when fraudsters like Idries Shah were on the prowl, peddling Arabian tales about the alleged wonders of Islam (see Ch. 2, The Fabian Conspiracy).


But even if the Prince is unaware of the true roots of the Renaissance, he ought to know what he has chosen to promote.


Markfield Institute of Higher Education (MIHE) was established in 2000 by The Islamic Foundation UK to "bring together the excellence of the British higher education and the richness of traditional Islamic education". Its rector is Islamic Foundation founder and chairman Khurshid Ahmad who is also a member of the Pakistan Senate and vice-president of the Islamist Jamaat-e lslami (cf. "British Islam colleges 'link to terrorism,"' The Times, 29 July 2004).


Charles himself, in his Markfield speech, acknowledges that for many years, the Foundation's aim has been to propagate the tenets of Islam and expresses his delight at opening the new building of the Islamic Foundation which "embodies the vision of its founder and chairman, Kurshid Ahmad". This is no longer about "tolerance" and "mutual respect": the Prince consciously endorses the Foundation's proselytizing mission.


However, the strongest supporting evidence for Prince Charles's conversion to Islam comes from what is known about his private life. Apart from making frequent public statements in support of Islam and endorsing Islamic missionary initiatives, he has reportedly taken to wearing a djellaba (long, hooded gown worn by Arabs) while relaxing and studying the Koran at his Highgrove residence (News of the World, 11 May 1997).


In 2001, Prince Charles also had an Islamic garden installed at Highgrove called the "Carpet Garden", after the Turkish carpet designs on which it is based - and has instigated similar projects across the country such as at a primary school in Cardiff and at OCIS ("Prince Charles inspires Islamic garden", BBC News, 16 Oct. 2003). It may be noted that he also proudly displays his Islamic prayer beads while on visit to mosques such as al-Azhar.


In photo: Royal visit to Egypt, BBC News, 21 March 2006.


Prince Charles's behaviour is psychologically revealing. If wearing Islamic or "Sufi" outfits and symbols in public may be explained away as a diplomatic gesture, wearing them in private betrays a psychological commitment to the tradition they represent.


Quite clearly, such behaviour is inspired by an intimate intellectual and emotional proximity to Islam indicating a commitment to that religion which amounts to conversion.


Being a Christian and a Muslim at the same time is consistent with both the perennialist teachings of Charles's left-wing New Age guru and government adviser Laurens van der Post (a member of the Bloomsbury group, who had his writings published by leading Fabian Leonard Woolf) and that old Islamic Trojan, Sufism, for which the Prince appears to harbour an incurable mania ("Prince Charles wowed by whirling dervishes", Asian News, 8 Feb. 2010; menmedia.co.uk).


It is also a classic example of the double-thinking, multiple-identity personality which Milner-Fabian society mass-produces for its own purposes.


In the light of this we can see why, in a speech on "building bridges between Islam and the West" delivered at Wilton Park in December 1996, Prince Charles called for more Muslim teachers in British schools, claiming that while everywhere in the world people want to learn English, in the West we need to be taught by Islamic teachers how to "learn with our hearts" (Prince of Wales, December 1996).


"Learning with our hearts from Muslims" and similar statements are of course staple sound bites taken straight from the propaganda writings of the Idries Shah Sufi industry which were massively promoted in the 1970s by left-wing outfits like the BBC and UNESCO - the successor to the Milner-Fabian League of Nations' International Commission on Intellectual Cooperation (ICIC).


Incidentally, both Charles's mentor van der Post and Shah have long been exposed as fraudsters in J. D. F. Jones, "Story teller: the many lives of Laurens van der Post" and James Moore, "Neo-Sufism: The Case of Idries Shah".


Thus, those who insist on learning with the heart as opposed to learning with the head may be practising (self-)deception.


For example, they may overlook the fact that "Islamic gardens" are of Persian origin (and ought to be called by their true name) and that promoting them as "Islamic" and as the chief representatives of Islam can only serve to obscure the more sinister aspects of that religion. The same applies to Prince Charles's (and other members of the establishment) construction of Medieval Islam as a force for cultural, scientific and technological progress.


The fact is that Medieval Islam's architects, scientists and scholars were often Greeks, Armenians, Persians, Indians or Jews who, despite their Arabic (or Arabicized) names, were not necessarily followers of Islam (Smith, pp. 113 ff.).


While Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, produced few learning or cultural centres of note, such places were mainly found (as one might expect) in the advanced countries conquered by Islam. After all, water is clearest and light shines brightest near the source and so does knowledge.


Islamic bankers are financing the Islamization of Europe

Needless to say, the lavish promotion of Islam indulged in by Britain's establishment requires vast amounts of cash which even Prince Charles does not have. So where is the money coming from? As the Prince reveals in the same speech, he had found that the subject of "understanding" between the Islamic and Western worlds captured "a remarkable degree of attention" from international financiers.


The attention of which international financiers his ideas had captured becomes clear from a speech on the same lines at an Investcorp dinner in July 1996 (Prince of Wales, July 1996). Investcorp is an Arab League bank created in 1982 by the Arab League (through its sub-organization, the Arab Monetary Fund, AMF) and Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank (www.jmhinternational.com).


The Arab Monetary Fund was headed by Jawad M. Hashim, a graduate of the Rockefeller-funded Fabian London School of Economics (LSE) and member of the Group of 30 (G30), a Rockefeller Foundation outfit. Investcorp itself is run by the London-based Iraqi Nemir Kirdar, a former Chase vice-president who was in charge of the Chase banking network in the Persian Gulf and was instrumental in promoting its business throughout the Gulf (Rockefeller, p. 298).


Prince Charles has also been linked with Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia whose Alwaleed Foundation works closely with Charles's own pro-Islamic The Prince's Charities.


The Alwaleed Foundation funds the Alwaleed Centre of Islamic Studies at Cambridge which in turn interlocks with an international network of likeminded outfits and, according to its own website, has developed a "global reach". In addition to being a notorious Islamist (Roberts, pp. 239-40), bin Talal is a shareholder in the Rockefeller-controlled Citigroup Inc.


Similarly, in 1997, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia donated $33 million towards a new building for OCIS in order "to establish Islamic studies at the heart of the British education system" ("$33 m gift to Oxford Islamic centre", Financial Times, 30 May 1997).


Given the identity and background of the said international financiers, it cannot be altogether "remarkable" that they were captivated by the Prince's pro-Islamic speeches. The Prince must be either remarkably naive or remarkably disingenuous.


Prince Charles as a lobbyist for Islamization

The final and incontrovertible proof of Prince Charles's commitment to Islamization is the honorary doctorate from the Cairo al-Azhar Mosque and Islamic University, awarded to him in March 2006, which he accepted as "the greatest honour", giving Islamic Spain as a model for the world (Prince of Wales, March 2006).


While officially, the award was meant to be in recognition of Charles's promotion of "inter-faith tolerance", al-Azhar director Abdel Sabur Shahin revealed the true intention behind the award as being "to encourage him to support [i.e., advance] Islam against the obstacles it faces in Europe" ("Row as ancient Arab university honours Charles", Daily Telegraph, 21 Mar. 2006).


Indeed, Prince Charles does not merely promote "inter-faith tolerance". He promotes Islam as a system superior to others. In particular, it must be indisputable that his promotion of Muslim occupied Spain as a "model" for the world amounts to nothing less than Islamism.


The Prince's connections with al-Azhar are particularly disturbing in light of the fact that in 1991 al-Azhar certified a manual of Islamic law outlawing all musical instruments and declaring that a Caliph (Muslim ruler) makes war on all non-Muslims until they either become Muslims or pay a non-Muslim poll tax (Spencer, p. 46).


Equally ominous is that British citizens interviewed on the subject by this writer appear to be either ignorant or in denial about Prince Charles's pro-Islamist activities. Among reasons for this is that Charles's promotion of Islam is barely mentioned by the media, while his pro-Islamist speeches are zealously guarded by the apparatchiks of Clarence House (Prince Charles's Westminster residence). The combined effect of this is that the general public is kept in the dark about the anti-British activities of some members of the royal family.


Prince Charles's subversive influence is further evidenced by the Prince's Trust which is notorious for its fund-raising events featuring rock bands, rap singers and fashion designers, as well as being sponsored by anti-culture idols and representatives of the money power.


The Foreign Office and Islamization

Another section of the Establishment involved in the Islamization programme has been the Foreign Office. As pointed out by former Conservative Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Michael Portillo, the British Foreign Office has a deserved reputation for being Arabist and partisan (The Sunday Times, 1 Aug. 2004).


Exactly how Arabist (pro-Arab) and partisan the FO became under Labour is illustrated by the statements of Ambassador to Lebanon Frances Guy. It will be recalled that in January 2006, quoting the Sufi Sheikh Ba, Frances Guy declared that bringing Turkey into the European Union is "a way of binding these two great religions together proving that there's no clash of civilizations" ("Policies of the West towards the Muslim World", Speech to Chevening Scholars, Birmingham, 27 Jan. 2006).


Needless to say, no member of the Establishment has asked British and other European Christians whether they want to see their religion bound together with Islam.


Meeting in Beirut: British Ambassador to Lebanon Francis Guy and Shiite Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah (AxisofLogic).


On 5 July 2010, in a post on the Foreign Office blog, Guy praised Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, a supporter of Iran with links to Hizbollah terrorists, as a "true man of religion", insisting that the world needed more like him (also note the extraordinary fawning posture assumed by "Her Majesty's Ambassador" Guy in her meeting with Fadlallah).


The post was removed a few days later on the orders of the new (Conservative) Foreign Secretary William Hague ("The passing of decent men", Guardian, 9 July 2010). However, in an illustration of how the British system works, Guy was allowed to keep her job until July 2011, during which time she was free to promote her peculiar vision of the nation's (and the Western world's) future.


THE ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE


Sufism is a Trojan horse for Islam in Europe

Islamization has followed a similar pattern on the Continent. As in Britain, Sufism was a forerunner of mainstream Islam. This was no coincidence. As noted earlier, Sufism (Arabic "al-sufiyya" a.k.a. "al-tasawwuf') originated in Christianized neo-Platonic traditions involving prayer and contemplation (Smith, pp. 124, 253-6).


As the Persian scholar al-Biruni tells, the word "sufi" itself comes from Greek "sophia", wisdom. Similarly, the Spanish-born Muslim historian and philosopher Sa'id al-Andalusi admitted that Arabic "faylasuf' derived from Greek "philosophos", i.e., philosopher (literally "lover of wisdom") (Rosenthal, p. 39). The son of lnayat Khan, Vilayat Khan, conceded that Sufism originated in the Ancient Greek Mystery traditions (Khan, 1974). Idries Shah himself admitted that "Sufis existed in pre-Islamic times" (Hall, 1975).


The fact is that all the key elements of Sufism, such as the Oneness of God, His identity with Truth, Intelligence and Light, along with recitation of God's name, contemplation, etc., as a means of experiencing unity with Him, are found in the spiritual traditions of the pre-Islamic Classical and Christian worlds (note 2, p. 493).


Thus, there is no need to resort to Islam (even less to style the latter the source of Sufism) unless there is an ulterior motive for doing so. These pre-Islamic traditions were adopted by Muslim rulers in the 8th and 9th centuries to lend a veneer of spirituality and cultural respectability to Islam and to facilitate the conversion of culturally advanced conquered populations. Having been successfully tried and tested in Persia and India, this tactic was now applied to Europeans.


In France, Sufism was promoted by the likes of Alfred Le Chatelier, founder in 1902 of the chair of Muslim Sociology at the College de France and his successor Louis Massignon, who wrote extensively on Sufism and Islam and counted among his prominent disciples Ali Shariati, a major ideologist of the Iranian revolution.


With the first wave of large-scale Muslim immigration from North African colonies, especially Algeria, in the 1920s, Sufi groups were set up by Hazrat lnayat Khan and the Algerian Ahmad alAlawi. This Islamic presence in France was reinforced by a second wave of immigration in the 1950s and 60s.


As in France, German interest in Sufism has a long history. Indeed the modem word "Sufism" (Latin and German "Sufismus") itself was coined by the New Birth theologian Friedrich Tholluck as early as 1821 in his Sufism: The Pantheistic Theosophy of the Persians. In spite of this, it was only in the early 20th century that Sufism began to be planted on German soil.


In 1910, Hazrat Inayat Khan managed to win some followers while on one of his frequent world tours and, in 1925, established the Sufi Association of Germany at Berlin. Also in 1925, the Ahmaddiya movement built Germany's first permanent mosque. After World War II, Khan's son Vilayat became the main propagator of Sufism in Germany.


Unlike Britain and France, Germany had no colonies and was under no obligation to accept immigrants from non-European (Muslim) countries. However, in October 1961, the German government - under pressure from J. F. Kennedy's administration which wanted to stabilize the economy of Turkey, a key NATO member in the Cold War - reached a secret agreement with Turkey, allowing Turkish "guest workers" to take up temporary employment in Germany (Knortz, p. 125).


As one might have expected, the "guest workers" became permanent residents, brought their families and grew from a few thousands to several millions.


The marked growth in Sufism and Islam in the 1960s and 70s coincided with the first wave of mass immigration from Turkey, later followed by new arrivals from Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries.


Some salient points which should be noted are:


1. The initiation of the Islamization process through Muslim revivalist movements (the Aligarh and Ahmadiyya movements, Inayat Khan's "Sufism", etc.) was not accidental. It was part of a well-orchestrated global enterprise. Between 1910 and 1926 Khan travelled extensively, establishing many Sufi groups in Europe and America. His global ambitions are demonstrated by the 1923 move of his organization's headquarters from London to Geneva, the seat of the newly-created League of Nations.


2. The combined overall effect of Islamic missionary activity and mass immigration from Muslim countries was that already in the 1950s and 60s, the early decades following World War II, Europe was on the sure road to Islamization.


3. Islamization has been neither requested nor wanted by Europe's indigenous population. It has been imposed on it by external powers in collaboration with corrupt governments and vested interests operating behind semi-secret organizations like the Milner Group and the Fabian Society (like the Fabian Society, the Milner Group believed in "minority rights" and supported Muslim demands - Quigley, p. 224).


Muslim Brotherhood

Inevitably, after "soft" brands of Islam like Sufism and Ahmadiyya came fundamentalist and militant Islam. A key player in fundamentalist Islam is the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which was established in 1928 by the Sufi Hassan al-Banna.


The Brotherhood was inspired by an ideology related to that of Saudi Arabian Wahhabism, with which it has collaborated. By the 1940s, it had become the most powerful Islamic movement in the world and later provided the basis for the development of al-Qaeda (Curtis, p. 88).


A prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood was Amin al-Husseini. In 1921, High Commissioner Herbert Samuel (see above) appointed al-Husseini Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Milstein, pp. 155-6), which had become an office of power under British influence (Yapp, p. 122). In 1922, Samuel created the Supreme Muslim Council, appointing al-Husseini as president (Yapp, p. 122).


In 1926, al-Husseini played a leading role in a Saudi-sponsored Islamic congress in Mecca, which resolved to set up the World Muslim Congress, and was appointed its president in 1931, while Muhammad Iqbal of the Indian Muslim League (see above) was appointed one of the two vice-presidents.


After World War II, in 1947, the World Muslim Congress was revived at the instigation of Pakistan's Governor-General, Ali Jinnah. In 1951, its headquarters was established at Karachi and alHusseini appointed its president.


According to its official website, the World Muslim Congress "has championed Muslim causes such as Palestine, Kashmir, the Filipino Muslims' struggle, freedom for Muslim people from European colonial rule, and the economic emancipation of the Muslim Ummah [international Muslim community]" (www.motamaralalamalislami.org, last accessed 1 Sept. 2015).


Britain initiates the creation of the League of Arab States

Meanwhile, with the encouragement of Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, the League of Arab States (Arab League) was formed in 1945, followed by the Council of Arab Economic Unity (1957) and the Arab Common Market (1964).


In 1946, al-Husseini was elected president of the Arab League's Arab Higher Executive. In 1962, he co-founded the Saudi-sponsored Muslim World League (Islamic League) which started a systematic campaign of propaganda, missionary activities and funding of mosques and Islamic associations all over the world (Curtis, p. 85).


In 1969 the Arab League convened the Islamic Conference of Kings and Heads of States which in 1972 formed the Organization of the Islamic Conference which was to be headquartered at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.


The Organization aimed to preserve Islamic social and economic values and promote solidarity among its members. Its institutions were to be the Islamic Development Bank; Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; Islamic States Broadcasting Organization; and International Islamic News Agency.


The Arab League and its network of organizations has been highly influential in shaping Europe's relations with Arabs and Islam and has been a major actor in the Islamization of Europe, particularly from the early 1970s.


THE 1973 OIL EMBARGO AND THE "EURO-ARAB DIALOGUE"


In October 1973 an Arab coalition led by Egypt and Syria invaded Israeli-held territories, but was defeated. During the War (known as Arab-Israeli or Yorn Kippur War) Soviet Russia, a long-standing ally of left-wing Arab regimes, sided with the Arabs whereas America sided with Israel.


In response to Western backing for Israel, Arab oil producers (the OPEC Bloc) decided to block oil supplies to Western Europe and especially to the US. Though short-lived, the embargo had dramatic and far-reaching ramifications.


On 6 November 1973, the nine European Community (EEC) member states met in Brussels where they issued a joint declaration initiating a Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) with the objective of strengthening the ties between European countries and the Arab world which was the main energy supplier (Ye'or, p. 52).


On 26-27 November 1973, French President Georges Pompidou and West-German Chancellor Willy Brandt met to reaffirm the intention to engage in a "dialogue with the Arabs" (Ye'or, p. 52).


On 31 July 1974, the first official meeting at ministerial level between Europeans and Arabs was convened to discuss the organization of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The EEC founded the European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation (PAEAC) for the purpose of enforcing greater economic, political and cultural cooperation between Europe and the Arab world (Ye'or, p. 54).


In October 1974, in Rabat, the Seventh Summit of the Arab Conference confirmed the political preconditions for the Euro-Arab Dialogue, such as EEC-US collaboration with Arab states in their dealings with Israel. A permanent Euro-Arab Dialogue Secretariat with its seat in Paris was created with the objective of promoting economic and political cooperation (Ye'or, pp. 55-6).


On 10 June 1975, the first conference of the Euro-Arab Dialogue was held in Cairo between European Community and Arab League ambassadors, at which an agreement was reached on economic deals with Europe in exchange for European alignment with Arab policy (Ye'or, p. 56). The participants issued a joint Memorandum pointing out that the Euro-Arab Dialogue was "the product of the common political will" of the parties involved (Ye'or, p. 89).


Over time, the EAD has become instrumental in enforcing the harmonization of Europe's economic and political and, increasingly, cultural and religious interests, with those of the Arab League. In particular, the EAD has imposed the introduction into European schools of educational and cultural programmes designed by European Islamic Centres (EICs).


Officially promoted as "educational" or "cultural" centres, EICs are in reality missionary centres. A telling example is the European Islamic Centre of Oldham, Manchester, which is a project launched by the UK Islamic Mission (UKIM) designed "for co-ordinating dawah work in the UK and Europe" (ukim.info, last accessed 12 Jul. 2012).


The work of spreading Islam, known as dawah, is undoubtedly a missionary activity aimed at converting non-Muslims to Islam.


The declared aim of the UK Islamic Mission is "to mould the entire human life according to Allah's revealed Guidance [viz., the Koran], following the example of His last Messenger, Mohammed".


Significantly, it was founded in October 1962 around the East London Mosque which itself had emerged from the London Mosque Fund run by Professor Thomas Walker Arnold (see above) and Lord Nathan ("Natty") Rothschild, head of N. M. Rothschild & Sons and founding member of the Milner Group (Quigley, p. 311). [*]


[*] My note.

The London Mosque Found page of the Muslim Museum Initiative website reports:


"1910. A public meeting was convened at the Ritz Hotel for the establishment of the London Mosque Fund for a mosque in London worthy of the tradition of Islam and worthy of the capital of the British Empire...


Lord Nathan Mayer Rothschild, First Baron of the famous Rothschild banking family became a trustee of the London Mosque Fund."

End of my note.


The Islamic Mission also has close links with the London Muslim Centre (LMC), launched by Prince Charles in 2001, and the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE).


INTERNATIONAL FINANCE, POLITICS AND ISLAM: THE CONSPIRACY OF THE CENTURY


This total capitulation to Arab demands seems quite inexplicable. Why would European powers give in to a rag-tag band of Arab states that had just been defeated by tiny Israel?


The answer can only be found by investigating the principal movers behind the project, namely Georges Pompidou and Willy Brandt.


Pompidou and Rothschild:

Georges Pompidou had been a close friend of David de Rothschild and his father Baron Guy de Rothschild from an early age (Stirn, p. 67). In 1953 he became an employee of the Paris bank Rothschild Freres (later restructured by Guy as Banque Rothschild with branches all over France), serving as its general director from 1959 to 1962.


During that period, in 1958-59, he served as President de Gaulle's chief aide and member of the Constitutional Council in which capacity he was involved in the drafting of the Constitution of the Fifth Republic. From 1962 to 1968 Pompidou served as Prime Minister, becoming President of France in 1969.


Baron Guy had been close to President de Gaulle and a leading figure in the latter's London-based France Libre (Free French) operation in the 1940s and was able to extend his influence on French politics in the 1960s and 70s, in particular as government adviser.


While serving as Prime Minister and President, Pompidou remained close to Baron Guy and sought to continue de Gaulle's Rothschild-influenced leftist policies. Significantly, Pompidou believed in presidential supremacy over all governmental life, surrounding himself with a like-minded Prime Minister and other loyal men (Stirn, p. 81-3).


His Prime Minister in 1972-74 was Pierre Messmer, a close friend and former colleague of Baron Guy in France Libre. Messmer's hand-picked government included Foreign Minister Maurice Schumann, a former member of the Second Socialist International; Olivier Stirn, Under-Secretary for Relations with Parliament (later Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs); and Economy and Finance Minister Giscard d'Estaing. Most of these - with the exception of Giscard - were close to Baron Guy.


Following Pompidou's demise in April 1974, Valery Giscard d'Estaing became President, but the continuation of Rothschild influence was assured through Stirn, his old school friend Jacques Chirac (who served as Prime Minister in 1974-76 and 1986-88 as well as President from 1995 to 2007 and was also close to Baron Guy), Chirac's directueur de cabinet Jacques Friedman (another school friend of Stirn) and their circle of friends and collaborators.


The Rothschilds were not without high-placed connections even during Francois Mitterrand's Socialist regime of 1981-95: Jacques Attali, vice-president of Baron Guy's United Jewish Social Fund (FSJU), was special presidential adviser (Coignard & Guichard p. 72); the Socialist Henri Emmanuelli of the Paris branch of Compagnie Financiere Edmond de Rothschild was Secretary for Budget; Stirn, his brother Bernard and associates occupied various posts, etc.


Rothschild influence on Pompidou and successor administrations being beyond dispute, it is worthwhile to briefly explore the links between Rothschild interests and French state policy.


On 3 January 1973 Pompidou and his Finance Minister Giscard passed a banking law (No. 73-7, Article 25) prohibiting the direct borrowing by the Public Treasury from the Bank of France at low interest rates (www.legifrance.gouv.fr). The law, known as "the Pompidou-Giscard-Rothschild Law" is said to have forced French governments to either borrow from private banks at higher interest or to take up national loans from the international financial markets (at similarly high interest) (Beitone, 2011).


Bat Ye'or correctly notes that a leading figure in pro-Arab policies was Georges Montaron, director of the ostensibly Christian outfit Temoignage Chretien (Ye'or, p. 268). In fact, Montaron's earlier role as head of France's Social Security programme identifies him as a Christian Socialist or "catho de gauche" of the Fabian type (Coignard & Guichard, pp. 333-4, 3367).


However, another point that needs to be emphasized is that Pompidou himself was especially attached to Muslim North Africa on account of his "Mediterranean vision of France" (Stirn, p. 137), a vision which was not unrelated to that of Baron Guy himself. As the Banque Rothschild's Algerian oil venture FRANCAREP had been partly nationalized in 1971 (as had Lazard's Eurafrep), it is evident that there were hopes of some of those interests being recovered (cf. "Guy de Rothschild", Daily Telegraph, 14 Jun. 2007). Indeed, from 1986, foreign oil companies were allowed to do business in Algeria again, albeit in partnership with the state-owned Sonatrach.


The Rothschilds were also involved in oil interests through giants like Royal Dutch/Shell. In what has been described as a characteristic Rothschildian move, Rothschild Freres in 1911 had exchanged their Russian oil wells for majority shares in Royal Dutch and Shell (Wilson, p. 324; Ferguson, 2000, vol. 2, p. 355).


Despite (or because of) the Communist seizure of their Russian operations in 1920, Royal Dutch/Shell became the world's largest oil company, making the Rothschilds one of the biggest players in the oil business.


The Rothschilds retained close links to oil companies like France's ERAP (Elf-RAP) and, in particular, Royal Dutch/Shell. In 1949, they still held majority shares in the latter which, on the 30th of June, they sold and bought back the next day to evade death duties on the demise of Edouard de Rothschild (Morton, p. 238).


Following reorganization in the company in the 1950s, which involved the creation of a Socialist-style committee of managing directors (CMD) consisting of hand-picked, trusted collaborators, Rothschild interests were still very much at the helm of Shell. For example, Sir (later Lord) Francis Tombs was a director of both N. M. Rothschild and Shell UK in the 1980s and 90s (FT, 12 May, 1989) and the Rothschilds have continued to act as financial advisers, financiers, investment bankers and paying agents for Shell to this day.


In short, it follows that quite apart from national concerns about energy supplies, Pompidou and his successors represented private business interests.


Willy Brandt and Rockefeller:

The Pompidou-Giscard regime, of course, had no means of forcing the EEC to surrender to Arab demands. Therefore, we need to have a look at the other key conspirator, Willy Brandt.


Willy Brandt, whose real name was Herbert Frahm, was a notorious Socialist activist who in the 1930s had been a co-founder and leader of the International Bureau of Revolutionary Youth Organizations, the youth wing of the International Revolutionary Marxist Centre, a.k.a. London Bureau. The Bureau was controlled by Fenner Brockway of the Independent Labour Party, who was also leader of the "League Against Imperialism" and a prominent Fabian Society member (Martin, p. 474).


After the war, still operating under a false name, the Socialist Brandt was appointed Mayor of Allied-occupied West Berlin and later Chancellor of West Germany.


In 1970, he introduced the "Ostpolitik" approach of collaboration with the Moscow-led Eastern Bloc at the instigation of US National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger.


In 1976, Brandt was elected President of the Fabian-created Socialist International and, in the following year, was appointed Chair of the UN Independent Commission on International Development Issues (Brandt Commission) by none other than US presidential adviser, World Bank President and CFR director Robert McNamara.


Ominously, the Brandt Commission proposed a "North-South Dialogue" programme involving wealth redistribution "from the rich North to the poor South", a policy pursued by the money power and its proxies - UN, Socialist International and Fabian Society - to this day.


It follows that while Pompidou was indisputably a Rothschild man, Willy Brandt was working for the Rockefellers.


Essentially, therefore, the prime movers [of Europe's capitulation to the Arabs] were the Rothschilds on the European side and the Rockefellers on the American side.


Kissinger himself had been associate director at the Harvard University Center for International Affairs from 1951, and the dominant figure in US foreign relations, especially as Secretary of State from September 1973 to January 1977. He had also been director of foreign policy study at Rockefeller's Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and worked for the Rockefeller brothers (David and Nelson) since the midl 950s (www.cfr.org).


Significantly, Kissinger had been special adviser to J. F. Kennedy (himself a CFR member) in 1961. In addition, he has been identified as a Soviet collaborator by American and French sources (de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 1, p. 34).


The Impact of the Arab Oil Embargo on the United States

Further investigation shows that the Arab oil embargo also affected US oil interests such as the Rockefellers' Standard Oil (ESSO) whose Algerian holdings had also been nationalized following the Arab-Israeli War (Six-Day War) of 1967.


David Rockefeller was the new head of Standard Oil and since 1969 chairman and chief executive of Chase Manhattan Bank. Chase Manhattan was created by a merger of National City Bank and Chase National, controlled by Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan interests, respectively, and is a member and major holder of Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the leading bank in the Federal Reserve System) stocks.


Significantly, Chase also had strong connections with the Iranian Bank Markazi (Iran's central bank), Bank Melli of Iran and a dozen other commercial banks (Rockefeller, p. 358).


In addition, from 1949 David Rockefeller was a director of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and later head of the nominating committee for membership, as well as founder of the Trilateral Commission in 1973.


The involvement of business interests is quite obvious. It is beyond dispute that Western partners and associates of Arab regimes (ESSO, MOBIL, Shell, etc.) made record profits from the higher oil prices generated by the embargo. Indeed, internal documents show that it was officials of Rockefeller-controlled ARAMCO who, in 1973, had encouraged Saudi Arabia to raise oil prices in order to justify their own price increase in the US (Anderson, 1974; Hersh, 1979).


The new wealth also enabled Middle Eastern oil producers to invest in Western economies. Naturally, this benefited the Western banks through which such investments were channelled. For example, after 1973, Rockefeller's Chase Bank became the leading bank for the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). Iranian deposits with Chase, in Rockefeller's own words, "increased dramatically", exceeding $1 billion in 1978 (Rockefeller, p. 360). By 1975, taking advantage of the new opportunities, Chase also established lucrative joint ventures in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Abu Dhabi (Rockefeller, p. 287).


This means that apart from oil-producing Islamic regimes we can clearly identify Western oil companies and banks as beneficiaries of the oil embargo. It is also evident that the EU strategy of rapprochement between Europe and the Mediterranean Islamic world coincided with Rockefeller interests' decision to develop a "strategy of aggressive growth" in the Middle East and North Africa as a response to oil related developments in the 1970s and 80s (Rockefeller, p. 287).


Moreover, there is plenty of evidence showing that there was an understanding (initiated in the months before the embargo) between Western governments and Arab oil-producing states for Arab oil money to be invested in Western industry, thus lining the pockets of the big industrial corporations.


British Foreign Office documents show that there were negotiations between the Department of Trade and Industry, the Bank of England and Saudi Arabia leading to the establishment of a "new long-term relationship in the linked spheres of development, investment and oil" (FCO 8/2123, PREM 15/2184, FCO 8/2332 in Curtis, p. 116).


The Department of Trade and Industry was run by left-wing Tory and Rothschild associate Peter Walker (later Lord), while the chairman of N. M. Rothschild & Sons, Edmund ("Eddy") de Rothschild, was a director of the Bank of England, a post he held from 1970 to 1983 ("Former Governor joins Rothschild board", Daily Telegraph, 17 Oct. 2003). Incidentally, this shows that, despite being nationalized by the Labour Government in 1946, the BoE remained under the influence or control of its old masters.


Another key figure in the negotiations with the Arabs was Chancellor of the Exchequer Denis Healey, former Fabian Society executive member, Chatham House (RIIA) councilor, co-founder of the Rothschild-Rockefeller outfit Bilderberg Group and leading advocate of western dependence on Arab investments and loans.


The Rothschilds, therefore, can be safely linked with the negotiations in question.


Finally, in 1968, Guy de Rothschild of Banque Rothschild (Paris) became a partner at N. M. Rothschild (London) and Evelyn de Rothschild of N. M. Rothschild became a director of Banque Rothschild, which shows that there was close collaboration between the London and Paris Rothschilds at the time (Ferguson, 2000, vol. 2, p. 488).


The Rothschild-Rockefeller connection:

As one might expect from international financiers, Rothschild and Rockefeller interests were also closely interlinked. The Rothschilds were long-established global players. In the 1850s, German poet and writer Heinrich Heine, a friend of the Rothschilds, wrote: "Our Rothschilds govern the exchanges over the whole earth" (Heine, p. 51).


The Rothschilds' well-documented global banking operations and close connections with Milner-Fabian circles in Britain and with international financiers like the Morgan-Rockefeller combine in America (cf. Mullins, pp. 92-3 ff.), suggest that they may in fact govern more than just exchanges. At any rate, David Rockefeller was a personal friend of Rothschild bankers like Evelyn de Rothschild, chairman of N. M. Rothschild, and Leon Lambert (a Rothschild through his mother), chairman of Banque Lambert of Brussels (Rockefeller, p. 207).


Rothschild-Rockefeller connections were particularly close in the oil industry. When the Rothschild-controlled oil company Shell launched on the New York stock market in the 1950s, its new shares were handled by the Rockefellers' Chase Manhattan Bank who acted as agents for Shell. The then head of Shell, John Loudon, was a close friend of David Rockefeller and when Chase set up its International Advisory Committee in the 1960s, it appointed Loudon as chair while several other Shell executives served as members, etc.


The Rothschilds and the Rockefellers were also linked through semisecret organizations like the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. As already noted, the former was created in 1954 by leading Fabians Joseph Retinger, Hugh Gaitskell and Denis Healey in collaboration with David and Nelson Rockefeller and other leading CFR officials (de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 2, p. 15; Rockefeller, p. 411; Callaghan pp. 203-4; Healey, p. 196).


Guy de Rothschild's wealthier and more influential cousin, Edmond de Rothschild, was the head of the private banking group Edmond de Rothschild Group (with branches in Paris and Geneva) and a member of the Bilderberg steering committee (Sklar, p. 179).


The president of the Bilderberg Group was Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, a Rothschild-Rockefeller front man (de Villemarest), who was a major shareholder in Royal Dutch Shell, whose head of research was Lord Victor Rothschild. Lambert and Edmond de Rothschild joined the European section of Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission in 1973 and 1974, respectively (Sklar, pp. 112, 114).


Between 1971 and 1974, Lord Victor Rothschild served as founding director of the Cabinet Office think tank Central Policy Review Staff (CPRS) a.k.a. the "Rothschild Think Tank" ("Lord Rothschild: biotechnologist and businessman: Obituary", FT, 22 Mar. 1990). His think tank was an organization which by its very nature must have had some influence on British government policy.


In addition, Rothschild collaborator Pompidou himself had attended a Bilderberg conference in 1966 (de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 2, pp. 132, 142). At the same time, Rothschild lieutenant Olivier Stirn operated within the French government in collaboration with fellow ministers Bernard Stasi and Jean-Pierre Soisson. The trio (the "Three Ss"), were old colleagues from the Paris Institute of Political Studies (IEP Paris) a.k.a. Sciences Po, which was run by the National Foundation of Political Science (FNSP), an outfit funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.


In 1974, Pompidou's Economy and Finance Minister Giscard d'Estaing became President of France. Under Giscard, Stirn was able to carry on the Rothschild-Pornpidou-Rockefeller line in various roles from Under-Secretary for Overseas France to Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.


(As Trilateral Commission member, Giscard himself was responsible for drafting the European Constitution in 2002-03 and remains a member of the Constitutional Council, France's highest constitutional authority, to this day).


At any rate, it is clear that, despite nationalization of oil wells, Anglo-American oil interests continued to control the technology for oil production and exploration, as well as transport and marketing operations and, indirectly, the price of oil itself, and that they were willing and able to use this control for their own agenda.


The Socialist connection:

Apart from the key role played by Socialist Willy Brandt (and the Kissinger-Rockefeller combine behind him), left-wing political involvement is also evident from the Socialist Presidency of the Council of the European Union itself:


Edmund Leburton (Jan. - Jun. 1973) of the Belgian Socialist Party,

Jens Otto Krag (Jul. - Dec. 1973) of the Danish Social Democrats,

Willy Brandt (again) and Helmut Schmidt (Jan. - Jun. 1974) of the German Social Democratic Party;


and of course from the massive support for the Arab cause from the Socialist Soviet Union - with which the Brandt-Kissinger-Rockefeller axis was collaborating.


Indeed, it ought to be obvious that without Socialist (especially Soviet) support the Arabs would not have stood a chance against Europe and America, had the latter chosen to take a tougher stand. As it happened, there was all-round collaboration of European and American private interests with the Soviet and Arab camps.


This, of course, was nothing new: Morgan-Rockefeller interests and their associates had been involved in left-wing projects like:


the Chinese Revolution of 1912,

the Mexican Revolution of 1910-20

and the Russian Revolution of 1917 (Sutton, 1974, pp. 51, 125).


The Rockefellers' Chase Bank (formerly J. P. Morgan-controlled Chase National) and Standard Oil had been conducting business with Communist Russia since the 1917 Revolution (de Villemarest, 1996, p. 242; and p. 199, above).


In the late 1960s, David Rockefeller himself was planning to branch into the Middle East, the Soviet Bloc and China (Rockefeller, p. 212), later opening a Chase branch in Moscow. This throws some much-needed light on the true motives behind the Brandt-Kissinger negotiations with the Communist Bloc, leading to "normalization" of US-China relations in 1971 and "detente" with Soviet Russia in 1972.


(It is instructive to read in this connection the chilling account given by de Villemarest - a former counter-espionage officer - of Rockefeller and Kissinger's attempts to suppress the publication of research he and Professor Sutton had done on Rockefeller's financial links with Russia's Communist regime - de Villemarest, 2004, vol. 2, p. 160).


It must also be recalled that it was the Anglo-American Establishment (in which Rockefeller interests were a leading element) and its agents, Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had given Central and Eastern Europe to Stalin at the Yalta Conference of 1945.


It was David Rockefeller, too, who in 1970 invited Romania's Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu to the Chase in New York and conferred on his regime the status of "most favoured nation" and membership in the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT), providing the regime with legitimacy and economic aid.


As we now know, the Rockefellers were Fabian Socialists masquerading as "capitalists" (see Chapter 2, "The Fabian Conspiracy"). Given the Rockefeller interests' Socialist predisposition and friendly relations with Soviet Union, it is not in the least surprising that, in 1973, Chase Manhattan became the first American bank allowed by the Soviet regime to open a branch in Moscow, and in a particularly prestigious location: at 1 Karl Marx Square, which not only corresponded with the Chase's New York address at 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, but was only a block away from the Kremlin, the supreme headquarters of the Socialist Empire of the East (Collier, p. 429; Sutton, 1974, p. 176, note).


On its part, Communist Russia was able to secretly import Arab oil and sell it to the West, a move which not only effectively reduced the embargo to a farce but also illustrates how Russia's Communist regime and international financial interests collaborated behind the scenes. At the same time, the former increased its own oil production, becoming the world's largest oil producer and a major beneficiary of the Arab "embargo" and related developments.


The very idea of using oil as a weapon against the "Capitalist West", as well as of a Euro-Arab dialogue, had originated with Arab Socialists with links to Fabian-dominated and Rothschild-Rockefeller sponsored International Socialism, such as Libya's Muammar Gaddafi.


In short, it is indisputable that the oil crisis and its importance were engineered and artificially inflated out of proportion by the above interests for their own financial and political agendas.


Another significant event which adds to the larger picture was the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Kissinger's intervention against half-hearted British attempts to block the invasion led to the systematic ethnic and religious cleansing of Greek Christians in Northern Cyprus which Turkey illegally transformed into a Turkish colony, declaring it a "federated Turkish state". The invasion marked the re-awakening of Islamic expansionism in Europe.


The above facts expose a well-orchestrated, worldwide conspiracy aiming to create a New World Order in which private business and political interests colluded with fundamentalist Islam at the expense of Europe's indigenous population.


As this collusion continues to this day indeed, it has progressively intensified - even when its catastrophic effects on indigenous society and culture have become obvious and indisputable -the inevitable conclusion is that lslamization is a conscious and deliberate effort on the part of its primary instigators. This conclusion is supported by the subsequent activities of the parties involved.


THE BARCELONA PROCESS


As noted earlier, Islamization had already started in the 1960s as a result of left-wing policies of mass immigration and multiculturalism. The negotiations leading to the Euro-Arab Dialogue post-1973 were likewise conducted by the Socialist dominated EEC.


In Britain (who joined the EEC in January 1973), too, policies regarding relations with the Arab oil states begun by Edward Heath's Conservative government in 1973 were carried on by Harold Wilson's incoming Labour government in 1974.


The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership

The initiative in the Islamization process was resumed by the European Left in 1995, when Spain's Socialist Foreign Minister, Javier Solana convened the First Euro-Mediterranean Conference of EU and Arab Foreign Ministers.


At the conference, a decision was made to "strengthen relations with the countries in the Mashrek (East Arab world: Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait) and Maghreb (West Arab world: Morocco and West Sahara, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Mauritania) regions" and work for a rapprochement between peoples through a social cultural and human partnership aimed at encouraging understanding between cultures and exchanges between civil societies.


Member countries of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership.


For this purpose the Conference established the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP) a.k.a. Barcelona Process or Euro-Mediterranean Process, laying the foundations for what came to be called the Union for the Mediterranean (www.eeas.europa.eu).


Solana and the War against Yugoslavia

On 30 November 1995, immediately after the Euro-Mediterranean Conference, Solana was promoted to the position of NATO Secretary-General, which he held until October 1999 when he was further promoted to the position of Secretary-General of the European Council and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union (which chairs the Foreign Affairs Council), a position he held until 1 December 2009.


In a sign of what the new Euro-Mediterranean Partnership meant (i.e., how far EU policy had swung in favour of Islam) Solana in March 1999 ordered a ruthless bombing campaign against Christian Serbia, which he carried out in collaboration with the left-wing US President Bill Clinton, for the alleged "genocide" on Albanian Muslims in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo.


No evidence of "genocide" was ever produced. In fact, there had been no genocide; the Albanian population had simply fled over the border to Albania due to the conflict instigated by Albanian terrorists backed by Western regimes.


Especially revealing is the sequence of events that led up to and followed the bombing of Serbia:


In 1994, Osama bin Laden started setting up Islamic terrorist groups in Albania ("Bin Laden opens European terror base in Albania", The Sunday Times, 29 Nov. 1998; www.kosovo.net).


In 1996, the chief of Germany's MI6-CIAcontrolled Federal Intelligence Service (BND), Hansjorg Geiger, created the anti-Serbian UCK a.k.a. "Kosovo Liberation Army" (KLA).


From 1998, MI6 and the CIA in collaboration with al-Qaeda operatives armed and trained KLA guerrillas to foment armed rebellion in Kosovo and create a pretext for military intervention ("KLA Rebels Train in Terrorist Camp", Washington Times, 4 May, 1999; www.globalresearch.ca).


In addition, members of the Pakistani terror organization Harkat ul-Mujahideen were sent to Kosovo by the CIA (Curtis, p. 244).


Being bombed by NATO from the air and attacked by the NA TO-backed KLA on the ground, the Serbs were forced to withdraw from Kosovo and leave the area in the hands of the Islamist guerrillas.


Meanwhile, left-wing billionaire and close Clinton collaborator, George Soros, orchestrated a campaign to overthrow the democratically-elected Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, using paid street demonstrations, media manipulation and attacks by his rent-a-mob "resistance" organization "Otpor" on government buildings and television stations (Horowitz & Poe, p. 234).


After the Kosovo conflict, which resulted in the destruction of over a hundred churches and the ethnic cleansing of 250,000 Serb civilians, KLA forces were sent into Southern Serbia and Macedonia in an attempt to create a greater Albania with US support (Curtis, p. 246).


George Soros as a Rothschild frontman

It must be noted that, like the architect of multiculturalism Roy Jenkins, Solana is a member of Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission. Similarly, Soros is a CFR and Bilderberg member and has been described as a front man for Anglo-French Rothschild interests. This description is not without justification, as we shall presently show.


Firstly, Soros' left-wing credentials are evident from his being an LSE graduate and disciple of leftist ideologist Karl Popper (Soros, 1995, pp. 113-4). Popper was an early proponent of the "Open-Society" theory, which is not only redolent of H. G. Wells' "Open Conspiracy" but is nothing but Socialist globalism by another name.


Soros has conveniently refused to define "open society", merely describing it as a society in which a person like himself can "live and prosper" (ibid., p. 113). However, his criticism of Capitalism, insistence on constructing a collectively ruled "global open society" steered by elements like himself (see Soros, 2000) and long-time activism for US Democratic causes, leave no doubt as to his true political allegiance.


Secondly, Soros has been closely associated with the Rothschild Group since the 1970s, when he was running money for Rothschild & Cie. Banque (Institutional Investor, Jun. 1981, in Slater, p. 92).


In addition, several Rothschild associates including Nils Taube and Nicholas ("Nick") Roditi have been advisers to Soros and his Quantum Fund since the early 1990s.


Another close Rothschild associate and partner was Sir James Goldsmith who belonged to a banking family (formerly Goldschmidt) with long-standing links to the Rothschilds (FT, 21 Jul. 1997) as well as being a member of the board of Banque Rothschild (Ferguson, 2000, vol. 2, p. 487). In April 1993, Soros became a stakeholder in the gold-mining group Newmont Mining along with Sir Goldsmith and Lord Rothschild.


The acquisition, supplemented with skilful publicity, drove gold prices up, enabling the trio to make big profits by dumping shares and gold just in time before the next slump ("Kicking up gold dust", FT, 19 Sept. 1993; Slater, pp. 119-120; and References, below).


This clearly shows that Soros is a trusted member of the Anglo-American (or, more correctly, Anglo-Franco-American) Establishment and, in particular, of the Rothschild Group.


More recently, Soros has been linked with the economists:


Amartya Sen, who is married to Emma Rothschild and is a collaborator of Rothschild associate James Wolfensohn,


and Joseph ("Joe") Stiglitz of Rockefeller's Fabian Columbia University (Soros, 2000, p. viii; Soros, 2002, p. xiii), who is a collaborator of left-wing economist Michael Rothschild. Stiglitz is also the founder of the global think tank Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD), which is funded by the usual Rockefeller, Ford and MacArthur Foundations.


[*] My note.

Details of how the Rothschild clan created its "golem" George Soros are outlined in the following articles:


William Engdahl, "The secret financial network behind vizard George Soros" (November 1, 1996);

Scott Thompson "George Soros: a Golem made in Britain" (August 29, 1997);

Jeffrey Steinberg, "George Soros: the Queens drug pusher" (August 29, 1997).

End of my note.


Central and Eastern Europe's privatization programme - or take-over by private interests of formerly state-controlled economies - in the 1990s was a carefully planned and enacted operation, in which the Rothschilds played a pioneering and leading role, descreetly acting behind the scenes as advisers to governments and business.


N.M. Rothschild managing director Jonathan Penkin [*] was a central figure in charge of key aspects of the project from initial sales of shares in state companies to fundraising.


[*] My note.

Jonathan Penkin is a member of the international board of the New Israel Fund, an organization that funds anti-Israel NGOs and global boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaigns against Israel. Analysts describe this initiative as a fundamental component of the BDS movement's strategy against Israel.


http://grokipedia.com/page/New_Israel_Fund#controversies-and-criticisms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Israel_Fund#BDS


Penkin is a classic example of a frontman for the Rothschilds and other Jewish bankers from the City of London, whose activities are part of the British ruling class's strategy to destroy the Jewish state. See articles:


The British Ruling Class and the Balfour Declaration;

The British Ruling Class and the Holocaust;

British Hybrid War.

End of my note.


The instrument through which the Rothschilds orchestrated this mammoth project was the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRO) which they set up for the purpose. Conveniently located a five-minutes' taxi ride from the Rothschild HQ on St. Swithin's Lane in the City of London, the EBRO was hailed as a tool for facilitating the return of Capitalism by creating "market-oriented economies" and by promoting "private and entrepreneurial initiative". In fact, it signalled the advance of neo-Communism a.k.a. Fabian Socialism.


At the same time, Soros' foundations pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into the region for "educational" and "social-reform" purposes, in effect taking advantage of cash-strapped former Communist economies to impose a globalist agenda.


Indeed, Soros had been funding subversive operations in Eastern Europe from the late 1970s, when he was already a close associate of Rothschild interests and clearly acted on their behalf or direction. He opened his first Open Society Institute in his native Hungary in 1984 and has been operating in the region through an extensive network of organizations such as:


Communitas Foundation (Bulgaria);

Stefan Batory Foundation (Poland);

Soros Foundation Romania (Romania);

Soros Fund (Russia);

Fund for an Open Society (Serbia);

and the International Renaissance Foundation (Ukraine), later involved in Ukraine's "Orange Revolution" (Horowitz & Poe, pp. 232-3). [*]


[*] My note.

According to a March 2025 NGO Monitor report, Soros's Open Society Foundations funds anti-Israel NGOs, campaigns to discredit and demonize Israel, lawsuits against it, BDS initiatives, and even terrorist organizations.


George Soros is another frontman for the Rothschilds and other Jewish bankers from the City of London, whose activities are integrated into the British ruling class's strategy to destroy the Jewish state.

End of my note.


George Soros and the takeover of Russia's Economy

In the 1990s, acting as the Clinton administration's de facto "Russian policy tsar", Soros was involved in the systematic hijacking of Russia's privatization programme by corrupt politicians and businessmen, which led to a loss of over $100 billion and untold damage to that country's economy (Horowitz & Poe, pp. 90-5).


From inception, Russia's privatization process amounted to a systematic take-over of its economy by the Anglo-American Establishment. In March 1992, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Gerald Corrigan, led a delegation of senior US bankers, representing J. P. Morgan, Chase Manhattan, Bank of America, Citibank and other leading institutions, to advise the Russian government on financial reform and foreign investment.


By the end of the following year, over 40 per cent of Russian enterprises were wholly foreign-owned while many others were joint-ventures between Russian and foreign interests.


In 1996, J.P. Morgan and the Anglo-Swiss SBC Warburg (later UBS) were involved in the sale of the first Russian bonds since the 1917 Communist revolution in the amount of $1 billion ("Russia's First Bonds since 1917 Gobbled Up", Washington Times, 22 Nov. 1996). It was at this time that Russia's industry and natural resources from aluminium plants to oil companies were bought up at derisory prices by a few local oligarchs operating in collaboration with Anglo-American interests.


Within a short span of time, over one-quarter of Russia's GNP came under the control of about 36 billionaires including Roman Abramovich, Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Mikhail Fridman, Viktor Vekselberg and Valery Malkin.


Fridman, Vekselberg, Leonard ("Len") Blavatnik and Oleg Deripaska have been operating in partnership with Nathaniel ("Nat") Rothschild through the Russian aluminium giant Rusal and the Anglo-Russian TNK-BP joint venture ("Tycoons in clash over governance at Rusal", FT, 14 Mar. 2012).


Soros himself, in association with Rockefeller-controlled Harvard Management Company, was involved in the acquisition of oil companies like Russia's Novolipetsk Kombinat and Sidanko Oil, as well as in attempts to take over gold and other mining operations such as Trepca (Kosovo) and Rosia-Montana (Romania) (Hobbs, 2007).


While puppet regimes of the Anglo-American New World Order were put in place from Serbia and Czechoslovakia to Ukraine, Russia barely avoided total surrender thanks to Vladimir Putin's rise to power. In 1997, the country's central bank announced that it would no longer do business with J.P. Morgan, Chase Manhattan, UBS and Societe Generate, and by 2004, the government was forced to take control of strategically important assets such as privatized oil companies.


Soros himself was expelled from Russia.


However, the Anglo-American money power continues to operate through proxies like Boris Berezovsky in collaboration with MI6 and CIA as well as far-left local activists and criminal organizations in a concerted effort to encircle and isolate the country and topple its government.


Berezovsky, who, thanks to the Soros-engineered privatization programme became co-owner of one of Russia's largest oil companies, Sibneft, openly admitted to plotting the violent overthrow of President Putin from his base in London (Cobain, Taylor & Harding, 2007).


In a bid to further weaken Russia's economy and facilitate the overthrow of its government, the Anglo-American Establishment from 2014 also imposed measures to restrict the country's access to credit and engineered a sharp fall in oil prices, significantly reducing Russian revenue from oil exports.


As well as harming Russia and despite reduced profits for themselves, this tactic creates new opportunities for monopolistic giants like Exxon Mobil and Shell to expand their global monopoly by taking over weaker rivals affected by the crisis -exactly as their banking counterparts did in the 2007-08 banking crisis.


Together with the EU and NATO's relentless expansion in the region, this has left Moscow with little choice but to increase its military alertness and, significantly, to support anti-establishment movements in EU member states as a defensive measure (Bremner & Charter, 2014).


Takeover of Eastern European banks

Equally revealing is the situation in the banking sector, with nearly 60 per cent of Central and Eastern Europe's banking assets coming under the control of international banks by the end of 2001.


In 2003, as Romania was introducing a "free-market economy" in preparation for EU membership (which was falsely advertised by the political leadership as an "enormous chance for future generations"), its government sold a 25 per cent stake in the country's largest bank, Banca Comerciala Romana (BCR) to the money power outfits European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and International Finance Corporation (IFC, the private sector arm of the World Bank) with a view to subsequent privatization.


What that meant in practice was that three years later, the bank (along with the EBRD and IFC shares) was bought up by Austria's Erste Bank, an Anglo-American Establishment operation discreetly run by former operatives of J.P. Morgan, Chase and Lazard.


The deal itself, the largest banking acquisition in the region, was engineered by the Rothschild Group in collaboration with JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citi. The connection with the Anglo-American Establishment is further confirmed by the BCR's correspondent banking relationships with Anglo-American outfits like JPMorgan Chase.


Other banks in the region (e.g., Poland's Bank Handlowy) met a similar fate, passing directly from state control to control by the Anglo-American Establishment.


The pattern that emerges is a familiar one:


while one member of the Anglo-American Establishment (e.g., the Rothschild Group) acts as economic and financial "adviser",

other members (e.g., JP Morgan Chase) take care of the capital increase necessary for the acquisition

which is performed by another member or proxy of the Anglo-American Establishment (e.g., Erste Bank).


The UN itself described the early stages of privatization as a "garage sale to favoured individuals and groups" (UNDP 1993 World Development Report) without, however, investigating the matter any further. Yet it is clear that the "garage sale" was premeditated and that it was possible only thanks to close links between the political leadership and leaders of international finance. Moreover, it is evident that privatization served as a Trojan horse for international finance to take over the economic and political systems of target countries.


This is particularly clear in the case of East Germany (formerly Communist-controlled German Democratic Republic). In 1990, soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall which divided the country, Goldman Sachs opened its first office in Frankfurt. In the following year, the bank was conveniently appointed as adviser, as well as to find buyers, by the government's privatization agency Treuhandanstalt.


Not only were the largest 1,000 enterprises sold through semi-secret negotiations and without public listing, but the whole project resulted in heavy losses to the government and a sharp rise in unemployment, while Goldman, who was also involved in raising funds for the wider reunification scheme, became chief adviser and financier to the federal government as well as to private banking and business across the country.


Particularly disturbing are the close links between Goldman's top executives and Germany's dominant figure, Chancellor Angela Merkel, a former citizen of East Germany (and left-winger masquerading as "right-wing").


While there are no laws to prevent international bankers, financiers and speculators from investing in places like Eastern Europe and Russia, the fact is that the privatization process which they promoted and from which they profited represents a particularly cruel and reprehensible betrayal of the region's people and their democratic hopes and aspirations.


The same money power, whose "Radio Free Europe" (set up by leading CFR members Frank Altschul of Lazard bank and CIA Director Allen Dulles) had for decades raised false hopes of a better life after Socialism, brutally dashed those very hopes by imposing a new form of Socialism run by billionaires, which (to borrow Orwell's phrase) may be termed "oligarchical collectivism".


This is the true explanation for the disturbing exodus of millions of Eastern Europeans in the direction of the West, to the profit, as shown earlier, of the money power and its political collaborators (like his Rothschild and Rockefeller associates, Soros is a leading advocate of mass immigration as a driver of "economic growth").


Thus, having become free from Communism, Eastern Europe and Russia's next headache is how to free themselves from Soros and his foundations (and the Anglo-American Establishment behind them). There is a growing feeling that a Russian-led uprising against the New World Order may be the only way out [*].


[*] My note.

The author of the book is mistaken in believing that the leadership of Putin's Russia is capable of leading an uprising against the New World Order. The reason for this misconception is Putin's propaganda, which skillfully shapes the image of Putin in the West as a conservative and defender of traditional values.


The leadership of modern Russia, including President Putin, is closely tied to the British ruling class. The vast wealth of the Russian elite is kept in banks in the City of London, and the children of members of the elite study or live in Britain and other Western European countries.


Furthermore, President Putin and the Russian government strictly adhere to the globalist agenda of the Fabian Society, which includes Islamization, environmentalism, increased state control over society, and the restriction of civil rights and economic freedoms.


Vladimir Putin (Deputy Chairman of the St. Petersburg Government) and Prince Charles (St. Petersburg, 1994).


Russian president Putin kisses Quran during mosque visit in Chechnya, August 23, 2024 (source)


Sources:

BBC: Former MI6 chief Richard Dearlove expressed regret for helping Putin come to power. (October 1, 2018) http://www.bbc.com/russian/features-45702333

CNBC: London is a laundromat for Russias dirty money (May 21 2018) http://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/21/london-is-a-laundromat-for-russias-dirty-money-uk-report-warns.html

CNN: Kremlin-connected children grew up in the very countries whose societies their parents claim to reject (April 12, 2022) http://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/12/us/kremlin-kids-in-the-west-invs

Brussels Times: Kremlin kids living it up in the West (2 May 2022) http://www.brusselstimes.com/220076/kremlin-kids-living-it-up-in-the-west

Putin plans to introduce a super-profit tax on entrepreneurs (April 12, 2026) http://t.me/ejdailyru/393718

Putin increases environmental taxes. (January 29, 2026) http://t.me/ejdailyru/381489

An Islamic bank may appear in Russia in 2026. (December 26, 2052) http://t.me/ejdailyru/375922

Russia is among the top 10 countries with the lowest use of cash. (November 9, 2025) http://t.me/ejdailyru/366057

Russia sees ninefold increase in treason convictions. (August 19, 2025) http://t.me/ejdailyru/355153

Putin signed a law introducing fines for searching for extremist materials online. (August 9, 2025) http://t.me/ejdailyru/345301

Putin signed a decree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (August 6, 2025) http://t.me/ejdailyru/344555

Putin's reign is accompanied by a demographic catastrophe among European ethnic groups. (August 5, 2025) http://t.me/ejdailyru/344412

Putin's rule has been accompanied by a rise in Muslim migration and crime. http://t.me/moscowtimes_ru/31704, http://t.me/rbc_news/118739, http://t.me/ejdailyru/338100, http://t.me/tassovkaru/50509

End of my note.


Nor is this problem limited to Eastern Europe and Russia. Investment inevitably results in influence and control on the part of the investor over the target economies and their political systems. When the investors already hold a significant degree of influence and power, acquiring more of the same can only result in regional and global monopolization of power.


Given the expansion of Rothschild operations into Central and Eastern Europe and Russia through JNR, TriGranit and other ventures, the manoeuvres of Soros and associates in the region clearly are part of a larger scheme devised by the international money power ("The Man Who Moves Markets", Business Week, 23 Aug. 1993; "Rothschild's driving force goes beyond making money", FT, 6 Sept. 2008). At the very least, financial groups and politicians share the same agenda and work for the same ends.


Thus, while Rothschild and associated interests expanded into Russia, Labour's Foreign Secretary David Miliband called for the incorporation of that country into the European Union. In the same speech (of November 2007, see below) Miliband also called for the inclusion of Turkey, another comer of the money power's European empire, whose membership of the EU has been strongly supported by British and American governments.


In its own words, the Rothschild Group is "the leading financial adviser in CEET (Central and Eastern Europe and Turkey)" and in 2011 Nat Rothschild's acquisition outfit Vallares bought Genel Energy, a Turkish oil company operating in Iraqi Kurdistan. This has resulted in the constant rise of Turkish and Middle-Eastern influence in the EU and UN power structure.


In an unmistakable sign of the shape of things to come, Srgjan Asan Kerim, an ethnic Turk from Yugoslavia, was appointed President of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in 2007. Kerim is a former Chairman of the South-East European Process and of the International Conference on Financing for Development which is attended by the heads of IMF, WB and WTO (which indicates which puppeteers run the show).


Ominously, Kerim is also former chairman of the Regional Forum on Dialogue of Civilizations, UNESCO's instrument for implementing the UN resolution (GA/RES/56/6, November 2001) on the Global Agenda for Dialogue among Civilizations, which emphasizes "the celebration of the variegated splendour of the highest attainments of this civilizational diversity", while European civilization is systematically excluded, suppressed, deconstructed and destroyed.


Moreover, since 2006, three other Muslims from Bahrain, Libya and Qatar (the money power's collaborators) have been selected for the post of UNGA President.


In sum, it follows that the Islamization of Europe is inextricably linked to certain financial interests.


Albania's geographical location mid-way between Turkey and Austria makes it clear why it is a key plank in the Islamization process. There are large Muslim populations to the east of Albania in Greece and Macedonia, a large percentage of which are of Albanian origin. To the north-west, there are Muslim populations (again largely of Albanian and Macedonian origin) in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia and Austria.


An Islamic corridor from Turkey to Germany which itself has 4 million mostly Turkish-origin Muslims (planted in the 1960s by US interests connected with the CFR of which Soros is a member) will clear the way for the advance of Asiatic Islam right into the heart of Europe and is the course followed by Muslim migration from Syria and elsewhere.


At the same time Turkey, Eastern Europe's historical enemy, receives financial aid from the EU (182 million pounds sterling in 2010) for no apparent reason.


The Left-engineered economic devastation of Greece;

the installation of Trilateral Commission member and former vice-president of the European Central Bank, Lucas Papademos, as prime minister;

the simultaneous spread of Islam in that country through mass immigration from Asia and Africa (engineered by the same interests);

and Turkey's close relations with Central Asiatic Islamic nations of Turkic ethnicity (Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, etc.) which are members of the Turkish-controlled Turkic Council and where the international money power holds oil and other interests,


- show how far this plan has already been realized.


The Dialogue among Civilizations

The subversive idea of a "dialogue among civilizations" - i.e., among the West and Islam - was introduced by none other than Iranian President Mohammad Khatami at a UN meeting in 1998, when he proposed to make the year 2001 the "United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations". The resolution (GA/RES/53/22) was backed by 12 Islamic states and left-wing US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (a CFR member).


The Anna Lindh Foundation

On 22-23 April 2002, at the Fifth Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Valencia an agreement was reached on an Action Plan to give a new impulse to the Barcelona Process. The Plan entailed:


Political dialogue and security cooperation in the region;

a free trade agreement;

internal market harmonization;

a new European Investment Bank (EIB) investment facility for the region;

cooperation in issues related to the social integration of migrants, immigration and movements of people;

creation of a Euro-Mediterranean Foundation to promote a dialogue of cultures and civilizations;

implementation of the Action Plan in the same area focusing on Youth, Education and the Media.


For the above purposes the following institutions were proposed:


the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly,

the Anna Lindh Foundation for Dialogue between Cultures,

and the EIB Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (www.euromed-seminars.org).


On 2-3 December 2003, the Sixth Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Naples approved the creation of a Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures, and the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (EMPA), and discussed the future of the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP) (www.consilium.europa.eu).


On 5-6 May 2004, at the Mid-Term Meeting of Euro-Mediterranean Foreign Ministers in Dublin, it was agreed to set up the Anna Lindh Foundation for Dialogue between Cultures (ALF) with the seat in Alexandria, Egypt (www.consilium.europa.eu).


Also in 2004, the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) was launched with the aim of strengthening EU relations with countries to the south and east of Europe, reaching to and including the South Caucasus region.


On 2-5 September 2004, the Human Movements and Immigration World Congress organized in Barcelona by the European Institute of the Mediterranean (IEMed, est. 2002) and attended by 1500 participants, concluded that emigration entails "demographic complementaries": the regions with older populations (i.e., Europe) can benefit from those with younger populations (i.e., North Africa and Middle East).


Participants also stated that assimilation of migration requires international cooperation for the purpose of establishing ordered forms of emigration.


In November 2004, Javier Solana admitted to have held secret talks with Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas, a statement he later retracted (euobserver.com).


On 30-31 May 2005, the Seventh Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Luxemburg assessed the results of the Barcelona Process. High Representative Javier Solana praised the "terrific" work of the Anna Lindh Foundation and the growing EU funding of the Barcelona Process which amounted to 900 million euros in grants and 2 billion euros in soft loans, annually (www.euromedseminars.org).


With a budget of 5 million euros, ALF has been able to set up branches in 43 countries operating at the centre of a network of over 3000 like-minded organizations.


The Alliance of Civilizations

In September 2004, following in the footsteps of Khatami, Spain's Socialist Prime Minister Luis Zapatero introduced the idea of creating an "alliance of civilizations" which he proposed to the UN General Assembly.


In July 2005, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in collaboration with Zapatero and Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, created a UN High-Level Group (HLG) to implement the setting up of an Alliance of Civilizations.


On 4 October 2005, addressing the European Parliamentary Assembly, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos called on the Council of Europe to play a major role in promoting intercultural and interfaith dialogue, proposing an Alliance of Civilizations, supported by the Spanish Government and the UN.


In the same year, the Alliance of Civilizations (AoC) was established by Zapatero and Erdogan with the specific aim to "build bridges" between the West and the Islamic world. In reality, the intention was to promote Islam in the West and legitimize and accelerate the Islamization process.


Although the Barcelona Process in academia is described as "Europeanization" of Europe's Arab partners, it is evident that the process of Muslim Arab countries converging with Europe is in fact a process of Islamization of Europe.


On 27 November, at the first AoC Meeting in Calvia, Mallorca, Zapatero stated:


"The Barcelona Process constitutes a successful example of the practical application of the spirit that inspired the Alliance of Civilizations and one of its most promising realizations, the Anna Lindh Foundation, fits in perfectly with this framework."


On 27-28 November, the Tenth Anniversary of the Euro-Mediterranean Conference was celebrated in Barcelona. It was attended by:


Spain's Socialist Prime Minister Luis Zapatero;

Britain's Socialist (Fabian) Prime Minister and EU President, Tony Blair;

the Socialist Secretary-General of the Council of the EU, Secretary-General of the Western European Union and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU, Javier Solana;

General Secretary of the Arab League, Amr Moussa;

General Secretary of the Union of the Arab Maghreb, Habib Boulares;

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan;

and numerous other Arab and European leaders.


It was resolved to "improve intercultural dialogue aiming at promoting understanding ... including through the work of the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue Between Cultures, and in support of the UN Alliance of Civilizations" (Chairman's Statement; www.euromedbarcelona.org).


In July 2006, under Tony Blair's Labour (Fabian Socialist) Government the UK Foreign Office sponsored a large gathering of European Islamist organizations in Turkey which concluded that all Muslims in Europe should abide by the Koran as a means of "enriching Europe" and setting an example for non-Muslims to follow:


"The virtues of decency, goodness and ethical conduct in all aspects of life are espoused repeatedly in the Holy Quran. They are given primary importance and govern Muslim behaviour in all roles of life including that of active citizenship. Following the teachings of the Holy Quran and the high standard which it sets, Muslims can enrich Europe as exemplary members of society and role models of decency and goodness" (Pargeter, pp. 198-9; Topkapi Declaration, 2 Jul. 2006 at http//:ammanmessage.com).


Just over a year after the Topkapi Declaration, in a speech at the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium, the then Labour Foreign Secretary David Miliband spoke in favour of a global and open Europe, immigration, strong, unbreakable ties with Europe's Muslim neighbour countries and inclusion of Turkey, the Middle East and North Africa (www.coleurope.eu; also BBC News, 15 Nov. 2007).


In June 2008 the Euro-Mediterranean University (EMUN) was inaugurated in Piran, Slovenia, with the aim of becoming "a university of universities". The University offers MA and PhD programmes with partner universities in Italy, Malta, Belgium, Greece, Lebanon, the UK and Slovenia, as well as seminars, conferences, summer schools, professional activities, etc. and issues the International Journal of Euro-Mediterranean Studies (IJEMS).


THE MEDITERRANEAN UNION A.K.A. UNION FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN: THE MARCH FROM DIALOGUE TO UNION


Meanwhile, France began to reassert itself as a leader in the Eurabian scheme (Gillespie, p. 58).


On 13 July 2008, while France was holding the EU presidency, the Summit for the Mediterranean, Paris, was convened by President Nicolas Sarkozy. The Summit was attended by 43 heads of state and government as well as by Amr Moussa of the Arab League; Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu of the Organization of the Islamic Conference; Jorge Sampaio of AoC and Andre Azoulay of ALF.


Following the summit, a decision was made to launch the initiative Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean, with the aim of incorporating Islamic North Africa, Turkey and the Middle East into the European Union (www.consilium.europa.eu).


On 3-4 November 2008, the Ninth Euro-Mediterranean Conference was convened in Marseilles. At the insistence of France, the prefix Barcelona Process was removed and the name of the new initiative shortened to Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) (Gillespie, p. 58). The creation of another Euro-Mediterranean University in Fez, Morocco was decided among other things.


Ominously, it was resolved that "the League of Arab States shall participate in all meetings at all levels of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean, therefore contributing positively to the objective of the process" (Final Statement www.ue2008.fr).


The presence of Arab League officials in any EU project is disturbing enough. But Sarkozy's Mediterranean Union programme went much further than mere participation in meetings.


It entailed nothing less than Arab League "co-ownership" of the Euro-Mediterranean area, which meant that the Mediterranean Union was intended as a "political, economic and cultural union founded on the principles of strict equality" between the 27 EU member states (EU-27) and their Arab partners (EU Observer, 2007 in Johansson-Nogues, p. 21).


The Arab League was to have as much say on EU Mediterranean agenda-setting and decisionmaking as EU member states. In other words, Arab League was to be directly involved in running the EU!


Sarkozy's chief instruments of Euro-Mediterranean policy were the Inter-ministerial Mission of the Union for the Mediterranean and the Cultural Council of the Union for the Mediterranean, both outfits created specifically for the purpose.


While the Interministerial Mission was used to launch the MU/UfM project, the Cultural Council was intended "to promote public and private initiatives that foster the cultural dimensions of the Union for the Mediterranean".


The nature of the initiatives and dimensions to be promoted by the Council becomes clear from Sarkozy's appointee as its president, namely former Foreign Secretary Renaud Muselier who was also president of the Arab World Institute (IMA), Paris, an Arab-French propaganda operation promoting Arab language, culture and religion (www.imarabe.org).


On his part, the head of the Inter-ministerial Mission was Sarkozy's special adviser Henri Guaino, professor at the Paris Institute of Political Studies (IEP Paris), where Sarkozy was a student in 1979-81.


The Paris Institute is an organization operating in partnership with Rockefeller-associated outfits like the London School of Economics (LSE) and the School of International and Public Affairs of Columbia University (of which Barack Obama is a graduate) and, as noted earlier, is run by the Rockefeller-funded National Foundation of Political Science (FNSP).


Sarkozy himself was a member of the World Economic Forum's (a Rockefeller-dominated organization) Global Leaders of Tomorrow (GLT) group [*].


[*] My note.

The Global Leaders of Tomorrow group is engaged in the development of future top-level managers who, having taken up the posts of presidents, prime ministers and ministers, will become obedient conduits of the will of the Anglo-American oligarchy.

End of my note.


Rockefeller and Obama

This clearly links the MU/EtM project with Rockefeller interests. This linkage is confirmed by the Trilateral Commission itself. On 7 -9 November 2008, its European section held a meeting in Paris, whose Summary stated that:


Mr Obama's election of the commission was "setting the stage for a broader change worldwide";

France was undergoing a similar situation while playing an active role in the change of the EU;

this "new thrust" was expressed, among other things, by the Pact on Immigration (designed to "manage immigration" but with no apparent results since its approval in 2008), the Mediterranean Union, and the initiatives taken "to harness financial and economic turmoil with efficient solutions".


Concluded that the Euro-Med Project was intended as "a model for the World" and that the establishment of a bureau of the UfM, with an Israeli Deputy Chairman (Ilan Chet) sitting together with a Palestinian one (Rafiq al-Husseini), was "a revolution" (Meeting Summary).


The above statement is highly significant for a number of reasons, notable among which are:


Obama's election was part of a worldwide plan;

France's change from centre-right to centre-left was part of the same plan;

the Sarkozy government operated in parallel with the Obama administration, which also once again demonstrates that the French section of the Anglo-American Establishment is playing a key role in the Milner-Fabian Conspiracy;

Trilateral approval of the MU/UfM scheme;

and the use of the name "Mediterranean Union".


It will be recalled that eight months after the Trilateral's Paris meeting, in a speech in the Egyptian Capital echoing that of Prince Charles in 2006, Obama announced a "new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world", introducing the same programme of "social and economic development" and WestMuslim collaboration as that promoted by Sarkozy.


Specifically, Obama pledged to advance technological and scientific development in Muslim-majority countries and promised to promote child and maternal health in Muslim communities. Tellingly, he did not say what Muslims were going to do for the Western world. Instead, like Prince Charles, Obama claimed that Islam's "tradition of tolerance" can be seen in the history of Muslim-occupied Spain, and welcomed Turkey's leadership in the pro-Islamic Alliance of Civilizations project ("Barack Obama Cairo speech 2009: the full transcript", Daily Telegraph, 4 Jun., 2009).


It bears mentioning at this point that Mr. Barack Hussein Obama was born to a Muslim father, his grandfather having converted to Islam (Remnick, p. 35) and that in Islamic tradition children born to Muslim parents are considered Muslims.


At any rate, the Trilateral summary also describes the Mediterranean Union as a "great success" and a "major breakthrough".


Deception of the public

The original name "Mediterranean Union" was later officially changed to the less controversial "Union for the Mediterranean". Ostensibly, the change was made at the request of Germany who, like other northern European countries, was not a great fan of Sarkozy's initiative.


But there can be little doubt that another motive was to cover up the fact that the central agenda in EU-Arab relations was no longer "dialogue" or even "cooperation" or "partnership" but economic, political and cultural union, no less.


Given the explosive implications, it is not in the least surprising that the whole project bears the hallmark of a semisecret operation and is barely mentioned in the media - as if it were of little consequence. As pointed out by Bat Ye'or, the Euro-Arab Project is totally unknown to Europeans although European tax-payers are funding many of the organizations working for its implementation (Ye'or, p. 268).


Academic publications on the subject, like Bicchi and Gillespie's The Union for the Mediterranean (2012), are typically concerned with technical issues such as how the project is progressing or fulfilling its intended function, while completely ignoring its impact on European society and culture.


This, of course, is no accident: Federica Bicchi is Lecturer in International Relations of Europe at the London School of Economics (LSE) and Professor Gillespie is the founder of Liverpool University's Europe and the World Centre (EWC), whose advisory board includes Edward C. Page, Sidney and Beatrice Webb Professor of Public Policy, LSE, and Professor Richard Whitman, head of the European Programme, Chatham House (RIIA).


In addition, EWC counts among its associates Darbouche Hakim of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES). OIES is an organization focusing on North African gas and is run by representatives of Arab and Western oil interests such as:


Ian Wybrew-Bond, former board director of Shell UK Exploration and Production, currently of Saipem Spa, a subsidiary of the Italian energy agency ENI which is partly owned by the Italian state financing entity Cassa di Depositi e Prestiti (CDP), a co-founder of the InfraMed Infrastructure Fund (see below);


and Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman Al-Saud, Vice-Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, Saudi Arabia.


Professor Gillespie is also the founder and editor of the Routledge journal Mediterranean Politics.


Thus, academic education, research and publication on the Mediterranean Union all are dominated by the same combination of left-wing and international financial interests which is behind the project.


The role of the Trilateral Commission

Unsurprisingly, the above Trilateral meeting was chaired by none other than Peter Sutherland, chairman of the Trilateral Commission (Europe), BP, Goldman Sachs International (London) and LSE.


Moreover, we find that participants in the meeting included the following Trilateral members:


Alfonso Cortina, vicechairman, Rothschild Europe (the European corporate finance arm of the Anglo-French banking firm Rothschild Group);

Michel David-Weill, former chairman, Lazard LLC (the company created in 2000 through the unification of the London, New York and Paris houses);

Guy Elliott, Trilateral Commission executive committee member and finance director, Rio Tinto, London;

Nigel Higgins, co-head of global investment banking, N. M. Rothschild;

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, deputy chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc;

Lord Simon of Highbury, senior adviser, Morgan Stanley Europe - an offshoot of J.P. Morgan & Co. (Meeting Summary, pp. 65, 66, 69).


A gathering of such leading lights is in itself highly revealing. Not only does it prove that, in addition to the Rockefeller Group, other well-known key members of the Anglo-American Establishment and associates are involved in the MU/EtM project, but it demonstrates the importance of the project to the money power.


It should also be recalled that Goldman Sachs was a close Rockefeller collaborator and key supporter of Barack Obama (see Ch. 8, Immigration).


The deceptive image of Nicolas Sarkozy

In addition, Sarkozy's Minister of Foreign and European Affairs was the Socialist Bernard Kouchner, who was married to Christine Ockrent, daughter of Paul-Henri Spaak's head of private office and a member, with Peter Sutherland, of the influential pro-EU Centre for European Reform (CER).


The above explains the otherwise incomprehensible fact that the supposedly "centre-right" and "anti-Muslim" Sarkozy was a key architect of Islamization, in effect doing the bidding of the Trilateral Commission and its left-wing masterminds.


The deceptive "left-right" political system

It also exposes the left-right political system in France and other EU countries as a scam devised to allow the international money power to rule the world from behind a smokescreen of "liberal democracy", while busily constructing World Socialism.


It must be noted in this regard that Trilateralists believe in "economic and ideological cycles" in which political power alternately changes hands from Conservatives to Liberals/Socialists and back again, at regular intervals marked by the election of political leaders whose policies lend themselves to the advancement of Trilateral agendas.


Thus, every change of political party creates ideal conditions for broader changes or "great leaps forward" (a phrase borrowed from Marxist-Leninist-Maoist terminology) in a Trilateralist direction (Meeting Summary, p. 3).


The arrival of the Socialist Francois Hollande at the Elysee Palace in May 2012 is unlikely to be an impediment to the project's progress. Hollande's Minister of Foreign and European Affairs is the ominously-named Socialist Laurent Fabius, Francois Mitterand's favourite heir and member of the money power's Trilateral Commission and Siecle Club (see below). Hollande's Deputy Secretary-General in charge of economic issues is Attali-associate, Rothschild & Cie. manager and Socialist philosopher, Emmanuel Macron.


Whose interests the MU/UfM is serving is further evident from the deputy secretary-general of its secretariat, the Italian Lino Cardarelli, a former LSE student who specialized in strategy and politics at the notorious Brookings Institution, an outfit described as a "Trilateral think-tank" (Sutton & Wood, p. 150).


Cardarelli has also been executive director of Bankers Trust Europe, chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce (Italy) and executive director of the International Foreign Bankers Association (Italy). On 24 November 2010, he was invited to speak at a closeddoor meeting of businessmen and bankers held in Rome and promoted by the Trilateral Commission, on the issue "Growth scenarios and 'new players' in the Mediterranean Area".


Needless to say, it is precisely such meetings -and many others of the Bilderberg Group and associated outfits - that to most observers' mind prove the illegitimate intentions of the money power. Such suspicions are not unfounded: Cardarelli has also been lecturing at the LSE's European Institute as part of its series "Perspectives on Europe", where he has called for the strengthening of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation ("The London School of Economics Sheds Light on the UfMS", UfM Secretariat, 20 Jan. 2012 www.ufmsecretariat.org).


Particularly revealing, however, is the financing facility for Sarkozy's MU/UfM project, namely the InfraMed Infrastructure Fund. It was launched in April 2009 by FEMIP, the European Investment Bank's (EIB) financial arm for the Mediterranean, together with French, Italian (see above) and Moroccan saving banks and the Egyptian private investment bank EFG Hermes ("Med investment project launched", FT, 1 May 2009; Lannon & Martin, p. 47).


The all-pervasive interests of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds

EFG Hermes' history exposes it as a close associate of Rockefeller interests. In January 1975, Chase Manhattan Bank CEO David Rockefeller and President Anwar Sadat of Egypt (the leader of the Arab world) signed an agreement creating a joint venture with the National Bank of Egypt (NBE) (Rockefeller, p. 288). The joint venture, called Chase National Bank of Egypt and later Commercial International Bank (CIB), was managed by Yasser El-Mallawany who, in 2001, joined EFG Hermes where he acquired a leading position.


Further investigation reveals how Rothschild interests operate in parallel with the Rockefeller Group. A key element in the chain of events was France's eminence grise Olivier Stirn, who belonged to the Pompidou-Guy Rothschild Set from early childhood (Stirn, p. 67).


Having been vice-president of the Radical Socialist Party, Stirn served under six presidents, entering government in 1973 under Rothschild associates Pompidou and Messmer and becoming Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs under Trilateral Commission members Giscard d'Estaing and Foreign Minister Raymond Barre. From 1998 to 2001 he served as adviser to Rothschild & Cie. Banque.


For good measure, Stirn was also a member of the Masonic Grande Loge Nationale Francaise (Molenat, 2006). In 2005, he became adviser to Sarkozy, then leader of the "centreright" party, Union for a Popular Movement (UPM).


In February 2007, during the presidential campaign, Sarkozy launched his idea of a Mediterranean union which he repeated on his election in May. Also in May, Francois Perol, managing partner at Rothschild & Cie., became Elysee Deputy Secretary-General in charge of the economy and "grand architect of Sarkozy's economic programme" ("Francois Perol, aux manettes", Le Monde, 14 Nov. 2008).


Sarkozy was also linked at the time with billionaire industrialist Vincent Bollore whose Bollore Group (the transport, infrastructure and logistics giant) operated throughout Africa and clearly stood to gain from large-scale EU projects on that continent. In addition, as director of French banking network Natexis, former director of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and former associate of Edmond de Rothschild Banque, Bollore had the necessary connections for such schemes.


In September 2007, under co-CEO El-Mallawany, EFG Hermes launched its Middle East North Africa (MENA) Opportunities Trust with money from Harvard Management Company (HMC), a subsidiary of Harvard which invests the university's $32 billion endowment (www.efg-hermes.com).


Like EFG Hermes, HMC was run by Rockefeller associates. In 2006-2007 it was headed by Mohamed El-Erian, formerly of the CFR-TC-controlled International Monetary Fund, and before that by Jack Meyer, former treasurer and chief investment officer of the Rockefeller Foundation.


At the same time, the advisory committee of the MENA Opportunities Fund itself included El-Erian and Lord Jacob Rothschild, chairman, and Andrew Knight, director, of Rothschild Investment Trust Capital Partners (RITCP).


This renders the Rockefeller-Rothschild fingerprints clearly visible all over the Mediterranean Union project.

In 2009, while Olivier Stirn was appointed Sarkozy's adviser for the UfM, EFG Hermes and associates created InfraMed. The latter, according to InfraMed Management and EIB, is the largest player in the South East Mediterranean/Middle East North Africa (SEMED/MENA) infrastructure.


The president of the InfraMed's investors committee was Franco Bassanini, former member of the Italian Socialist Party, founder and president of the left-wing think tank for administrative reform ASTRID (www.astrid.eu), member of the Attali Commission and president of the bank Cassa di Depositi e Prestiti (CDP).


The then EIB president was the Belgian Philippe Maystadt, chairman of the IMF Interim Committee in the 1990s and Bilderberg participant. Incidentally, Maystadt was succeeded by the German Werner Hoyer, a member of the European Union of Federalists (EUF) which campaigns for world government and has a history of close collaboration with Milner-Rockefeller interests.


As we saw earlier, EIB was a close collaborator of Rothschild interests in European projects like the Channel Tunnel.


It may also be recalled that Rockefeller created the bank Investcorp with the Arab League's Arab Monetary Fund which is backing Prince Charles's Islamization programme and similar projects.


In 2010, Stirn became the Secretary for Diversity of the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP) and in the following year created the Union of French Muslims (UFM) (L'UMP cree une Union des Francais musulmans, Le Monde, 18 Mar. 2011).


Another key promoter of the same agenda with Rothschild connections is the French-Tunisian Hakim El Karoui. El Karoui is assistant manager at Rothschild & Cie (a reincarnation of Banque de Rothschild) in charge of African and Mediterranean mergers and acquisitions, as well as founder and director of the elite 21st Century Club (Club XXIe Siecle) which promotes cultural and racial diversity (www.21eme-siecle.org).


Karoui's club tellingly points to the French Establishment's similarly named Club Le Siecle, Paris, whose exclusive membership consists of the head of Rothschild & Cie. Edouard de Rothschild (son of Baron Guy), Yannick Bollore (son of Vincent), as well as Sarkozy, Kouchner, Fabius and other members of the powerful and wealthy set.


To this club and set also belongs Fabius' old school friend, Algerian-born Dr. Jacques Attali, a notorious Marxist, prophet of world government (Attali, 2007, 2011) and long-time Rothschild associate (see p. 439).


As special adviser to President Francois Miterrand, Attali in 1991 founded the London-based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) which is involved in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean (SEMED) and other regions penetrated by the money power.


The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), established with Attali's participation, was one of the co-founders of the Rothschild company TriGranit. The bank's Managing Director for Energy and Natural Resources, Riccardo Puliti, is a graduate of Imperial College London and a former employee of N.M. Rothschild. Today, the EBRD is financing the Eurasian Tunnel, connecting mainland Turkey with Europe, and is implementing and planning a number of investment projects in North Africa and Jordan.


In 2007, Sarkozy appointed Attali head of the "Commission for the liberation of France's economic growth", an international project involving the CFR-controlled World Bank and European members of the money power like Rothschild Europe vice-chairman Pehr Gyllenhammar and Franco Bassanini of Cassa Depositi and InfraMed.


It follows from all this that a coalition of Rockefeller-Rothschild, Arab, and European Left interests is the driving force behind the Mediterranean Union project and, on a wider scale, behind the Islamization of the Western world.


Promotion of Muslim immigration into Europe

While the above interests have been pushing for the economic, political and cultural union of Europe with the Arab world, immigration has been high on the EU-Euromed agenda. Among the objectives adopted by the 2005 Barcelona Declaration and Euro-Mediterranean ministerial meetings in 2006 (Tampere) and 2007 (Lisbon and Albufeira) were:


the promotion of migration opportunities;

facilitating and simplifying migration procedures;

removing obstacles to "legitimate" travel;

and optimizing the "social and economic benefits" of migration for countries of origin, transit and destination (Lannon & Martin, pp. 38-40).


Clearly, the overarching objective has been to facilitate and promote Muslim immigration into Europe.


Tellingly, Trilateralist Peter Sutherland, who chaired his organization's 2008 Paris meeting, was also Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Migration and, as noted earlier, head of the UN' s immigrationist operation, the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD).


It is not out of place to also point out the connections between EFG (Egyptian Financial Group) Hermes and EFG (European Financial Group) Eurobank, a member company of the European Financial Group (EFG) SA, Luxembourg (part of Rothschild-dominated Luxembourg Bankers Association). While EFG Hermes has been advised by the Rothschild Group on the Mediterranean project, EFG Eurobank has been advised by the same Group on operations in Eastern Europe.


Eastern Partnership project

At about the same time (in March 2009), the EU launched its Eastern Partnership (EaP) project aiming to incorporate Europe's Eastern neighbours Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan (Holden, p. 161). Arguably, the first five of these belong to Europe's wider ethnic, cultural and religious sphere. By contrast, Azerbaijan is indisputably a Muslim state whose population speaks a Turkic language of Central Asian origin and cannot be said to be part of Europe in any meaningful sense. The inclusion of Azerbaijan exposes a wider EU agenda.


The London School of Economics and "Open Europe"

In October 2009, in view of the Spanish presidency of the EU beginning on 1 January 2010, the LSE-controlled Barcelona Centre for International Relations (CIDOB) and the Barcelona Economy Circle published A Project for Europe proposing "a strong and open Europe" and, ominously, "greater involvement of the East in Europe".


If the neurotic repetition of the phrase "open Europe" has by now become something of a mania in Euro-Med discourse, the insistence on a "strong and open Europe" borders on schizophrenia. The fact is that strength implies resistance whereas openness suggests the opposite. To ask Europe to be simultaneously strong and open is like asking an army unit to both fight and surrender.


This is no isolated phenomenon. It is symptomatic of the general schizophrenia endemic to Milner-Fabian Western society whose versatile, multifunctional and multipurpose citizen is trained from an early age to develop multiple identities and personalities that enable him (to paraphrase Marx) to be conservative today and "progressive" tomorrow, male in the morning and female in the afternoon, white in the evening and black after dinner, and alternately or simultaneously Christian, Muslim and atheist in between.


All for the benefit of a spurious "economic growth" and "social progress" that stubbornly refuses to materialize for anyone except for the ruling clique.


Network of Islamization Organizations

As noted earlier (see Ch. 2, The Fabian Conspiracy), Barcelona Centre for International Relations (CIDOB) works on Mediterranean issues in conjunction with a network of organizations based primarily in Spain (Elcano, IEMed), but also in other European countries like Italy (Fondazione Mediterraneo and the newly formed Casa del Maghreb Arabo, Naples) and Arab countries like the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO), Tunis, as well as with UN outfits like the World Urban Forum.


To promote and implement its Eurasian agenda, CIDOB forms a joint body with the Spanish Asia House (Casa Asia) and the think tank Royal Elcano Institute with the objective of "facilitating greater closeness with Central Asia", again in collaboration with European and international networks working on the topic. A related outfit is the EU-ASIA Centre, Brussels, a think tank promoting closer relations with Asia.


The "East", therefore, means the Islamic world from the Middle East all the way to Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, etc.), i.e., to the borders of, and no doubt eventually including, Afghanistan and Pakistan.


We note that in June 2012, EU High Commissioner Catherine Ashton visited Islamabad to launch the ominously-named EU-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue. During an earlier debate workshop, CIDOB experts had declared that the region's new identity was based on a "hybrid, moderate Islam marked by communism" (CIDOB News, 18 Dec. 2009 www.cidob.org/enlnoticias). It does not appear to have occurred to the said "experts" that no matter how "moderate" a brand of Islam is, it can turn into less moderate versions any time.


Like other similar organizations across Europe, particularly in France and Italy, the Barcelona Economy Circle is a group representing pro-EU business interests associated with the international money power. It was founded in 1958 by Carlos Ferrer Salat, who later became Trilateral Commission member, president of Banco de Europa SA, vice-president of the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe, President of the European Economic and Social Committee, member of the International Olympic Committee, etc.


Similarly, the EU-ASIA Centre is officially associated with the Foundation for International Relations and Foreign Dialogue (FRIDE), Madrid, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), the Euro-Mediterranean Study Commission (EuroMeSCo), of which Chatham House is a member, and the Policy Association for an Open Society (PASOS), an offshoot of Soros' Open Society Institute (OSI).


In short, all projects contributing to the Islamization of Europe can be traced to the same international financial interests.


The true purpose of InfraMed becomes apparent from the objectives of its parent organization, the Euro-Mediterranean Facility for Investment and Partnership or Facilite Euro-Mediterraneenne d'Investissement et de Partenariat (FEMIP), which are the "modernization", "democratization", and "opening up" of the economies of the Mediterranean partner countries (MPCs) with a view to "creating an investment-friendly environment" and "supporting the private sector in the form of local initiatives or direct foreign investment".


In other words, its purpose is to open up the economies of the countries involved to commercial penetration and, ultimately, political domination by international money interests. This treatment has been applied to Eastern European countries penetrated by the EU and associated money interests, to the Mediterranean region and to the South Caucasus-Central Asia region. In a policy memo, the ECFR conceded that the EU is "more concerned about its own energy interests and security in Azerbaijan than for the state of democracy there" (Kobzova & Alieva, p. 2).


The parallels between penetration of Eastern European countries in the 1990s and penetration of the Mediterranean and Central Asia regions are highlighted in Trilateral Commission and related literature. There are good reasons for this.


Soros as the Rothschilds' golem

It will be recalled that EU expansion into Central and Eastern Europe coincided with Soros and Rothschild activities in the region. The same applies to EU expansion into South Caucasus and Central Asia.


As in Eastern Europe, Soros has been operating in the region since the 1990s through organizations like the Soros Foundation-Kazakhstan (SFK), Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation (OSI-AF) Azerbaijan and sister outfits in neighbouring states, all part of his international network of "open society" foundations, clearly preparing the ground for the international money power to spread its tentacles and take over by stealth.


Soros was involved in orchestrating the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (which is currently controlled by Soros-associated oligarchs pushing the country into the arms of the ever-expanding EU) and, reportedly, the 2003 coup in Georgia (Horowitz & Poe, p. 21).


Similarly, while Rothschild interests in Central and Eastern Europe are operating through JNR, TriGranit, etc., their main outfit in Central Asia is Tau Capital PLC, a joint venture of Jacob Rothschild's Spencer House Capital Management and Kazakhstan's Compass Asset Management ("Rothschild review", FT, 9 Sept. 2008).


The Rothschilds have long historical links to the region: Rothschild Freres owned oil fields near Baku, Azerbaijan, in the early 1900s.


The Rothschilds and the depletion of National Economies

Needless to say, Rothschild operations in the region represent a fraction of the activities of the Rothschild Group which operates in over forty countries around the world. The group's influence and power are significantly multiplied by its members' serving as partners, directors and trustees of numerous other companies and, in particular, by their acting as advisers and financiers to business and governments.


However, the dismal economic performance of Rothschild-dominated regimes (including that of France, where Rothschild & Cie. manager Emmanuel Macron is in charge of economy and finance) raises the question as to whether Rothschild influence does not ultimately work more in favour of Rothschild interests than in favour of the countries concerned.


Poor economic performance provides additional "reasons" for intervention by the money power and plunges the affected economies (and the world) deeper and deeper into a vicious circle of bogus Keynesian (Fabian) economics and rising dependence on international finance.


That the money power has lost faith in the wisdom of its own economic projects is evident from statements by its representative George Soros to the effect that the very foundations of economic theory have proved to be inadequate, forcing him to set up the Institute of New Economic Thinking (INET) - a member of the money power's Oxford Martin School to "completely rethink economic theory" (J. Martin, 2012). On Soros' and the economic establishment's past performance, it is not difficult to guess what the outcome of this new effort might be.


Rothschild and the London School of Economics

At any rate, what must be noted is that Tau Capital was set up in 2007 for the purpose of investing in precisely those countries that were to form part of the EU's Eastern Partnership (EaP) programme and similar projects sponsored by the London School of Economics (LSE) - TC leadership and co-funded by the EBRD, EIB and associated commercial banks.


As is well known, the LSE is funded by Rothschild-Rockefeller-Arab and associated interests ("Libya and the LSE: Large Arab gifts to universities lead to 'hostile' teaching", Daily Telegraph, 3 Mar. 2011) and so are numerous other academic institutions including the universities of Oxford, Harvard and New York (Tan, 2012) with which proponents of projects like the EaP and MU/UfM are closely connected.


From the time of Lord Rosebery and his brother-in-law Lord Rothschild, LSE has also been governed by individuals with close links to the corporate community (see also p. 508). While Goldman Sachs partner Sutherland serves as its chairman, Rothschild and associates discreetly run various key departments. For example, the advisory board of LSE's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, founded and financed by Shell interests, includes Sir Evelyn de Rothschild of EL Rothschild Ltd. and Vikram Singh Mehta of Shell Companies, India.


The pattern that emerges is identical to that noted in the creation and running of the League of Nations, EU and UN:


the money power finances research institutions, think tanks and other advisory bodies

which propose to government departments (influenced or controlled by the money power) policies serving the agenda of the money power.

These policies are then implemented by organizations funded, run, or otherwise influenced or controlled by the same money power.


Consolidation of the Rockefeller and Rothschild groups

As in previous internationalist projects, the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds are key players in developments connected with the Mediterranean Union and lslamization.


In addition, in May 2012, Lord Jacob Rothschild's RITCP announced its acquisition of a 37 per cent stake in David Rockefeller's wealth advisory and asset management group, Rockefeller Financial Services ("Rockefellers and Rothschilds Unite", FT, 29 May 2012).


This makes the two groups officially associates for the first time in the history of their relationship, demonstrating not only their global reach but their mutual commitment to close collaboration. Together with the merging of the various European Rothschild interests, the move also illustrates the consolidation of international money interests and the relentless concentration of power in the hands of the same clique who started it all.


Sooner or later, the Rothschilds and Rockefellers will be replaced by Islamists

However, while in the 1950s and 60s the money power's global framework of power and influence was firmly in Western hands, it is now increasingly being infiltrated and taken over by non-Western groups grown rich and powerful as a result of the Western money power's own policies.


Individual Muslims have long penetrated the international power structure. The legendary Saudi Suliman Olayan started as a truck driver for the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) in the 1940s and ended up holding substantial shares in J. P. Morgan, Chase, Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank ("From orphan to oil magnate", FT, 12 Jul. 2002).


Another example is Mohamed El-Erian, CEO of the Pacific Investment Management Company (PIMCO), member of the IMF Capital Markets Consultative Group (CMCG) and former head of the Harvard Management Company (HMC) (Harvard University Gazette, 20 Oct. 2005).


But developments like the admission of the Arab League to EU meetings and the selection of Muslims for the post of United Nations General Assembly President (see above) reflect dramatic changes in power relations taking place at the very core of that structure.


These changes are reflected not only in EU Mediterranean policy but also in the spectacular shift of America's relationship with the Muslim world from "confrontation" to open collaboration, much praised by the Trilateral Commission and the CFR ("Scoring Obama's Foreign Policy", Foreign Relations, May/June 2012).


More specifically, they are reflected in the EFG-Hermes agreement in May 2012 to create a joint venture with Qlnvest, a unit of the Qatar Islamic Bank (QIBK) which would make the latter a majority stockholder of EFG-Hermes. Qatar is a major sponsor of Islamic radicalism to which it has contributed billions of dollars.


Sooner or later, EFG-Hermes and associated outfits will be run not by Rockefeller front men but by hard-line Islamists and the same applies to the Mediterranean Union itself and allied instruments of Islamization.


That Muslims are gradually replacing their left-wing collaborators at the top of the Islamization Project is evidenced by the constellation of dignitaries consisting of Mozah bint Nasser alMissned (wife of Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, Emir of Qatar), Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, UfM coarchitect Zapatero, UN High Representative for the Alliance of Civilizations (AoC) Jorje Sarnpaio and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon himself, who posed together for the money power's news agencies after the AoC opening conference in Madrid, on 15 January 2008.


Thus, while the "Arab Spring" currently sweeping through North Africa and the Middle East has been hailed as a "democratization", "Europeanization", or "Westernization" of the region, what is actually taking place is the systematic lslamization of Europe and the West. The fact is that Islamist groups are on the rise everywhere as seen, for example, in Egypt and Iraq.


Moreover, for demographic reasons alone, the international power structure is rapidly slipping out of the hands of white European-American groups. Before long, the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers will be replaced by the al-Sauds and their African-Asian associates.


It may be added that the "Arab Spring" - to which the Trilateral Commission refers as "Arab Awakening" -is the doing of the same interests. The fact that it was apparently started by "spontaneous" protests against government policies should not detract from the ubiquitous involvement of CIA-MI6 elements in Libya and elsewhere.


In Syria, opponents of President Assad operating from bases in Turkey, have been trained and funded by the US State Department through Soros-associated outfits like the Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR) and Freedom House ("The Syrian Cyberwar", Time, 25 Jun. 2012). Significantly, IWPR is chaired by Sir David Bell, former director of the Lazard-associated global media group Pearson, director of The Economist and trustee of Common Purpose International.


Nor can the "Arab Spring" be unrelated to the MU/UfM project.


As for the money power's Muslim partners, their global ambitions are evident from their international activities. Qatar Islamic Bank, which operates according to Islamic Sharia law, has set up a global network of subsidiaries, affiliates and associates including the ominously-named European Finance House (EFH) of London and the Asian Finance Bank (AFB) of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (an Islamo-Fabian "monarchy" modelled on the UK).


A plan to create a Muslim superstate on European soil

The money power's response to these developments has been to demand more of the same, only bigger and faster. At its 2011 European meeting at the Hague, the Trilateral Commission called for the EU to "show far greater ambition"; set up a "true Euro-Med Community"; cast aside a "Fortress Europe mentality"; present itself as an "Open Europe"; avoid the "mistake of dividing states into "moderate" and "radical"; and, most ominously of all, to be "open to all interested external powers"!


Come what may, the Trilateral wants all North African and Middle Eastern countries incorporated into Europe by 2030, the "reasoning" being that Europe will lose 20 million inhabitants by then and therefore it will need the "demographic dynamism of the southern and eastern Mediterranean" (pp. 2, 4, 6-8, original emphasis).


The fact is that the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region consists of eleven Muslim states (Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey), which will be joined by South European ones like Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina and, eventually no doubt, further members from the Gulf States to Iraq, making up a total of about seventeen states with a population of over 400 million (www.emwis.net/initiatives/mediterranean-union).


Incorporating them all into a "true Euro-Med Community" goes far beyond adding 20 million. It will create a Muslim majority and an Islamic Superstate on European soil.


The final result of this policy will be nothing less than the irrevocable destruction of European culture and civilization. This will become even more the case with the implementation of the current plans to open up the European Union to Islamic Western and Central Asia.


Milner-Fabian plan for the unification of Europe and Africa

As if this were not catastrophic enough, the money power represented by the Trilateral Commission and associated outfits is planning a union not only with North Africa but with the rest of the continent. Uniting Europe with Africa (the Anglo-American Establishment's traditional source of income and power) is an entrenched Milner-Fabian fantasy.


Africa has been a longtime target for Milner-Fabian penetration. The British South Africa Company (BSAC) of the Rhodes-Beit-Rothschild combine had already been in operation there in the late 1880s and the development of Africa was enshrined by Rothschild lieutenant Rene Mayer as one of Europe's "essential tasks" in the 1950 Schuman Declaration (Monnet, p. 300).


Fabians, too, began to show interest in African affairs in the 1890s. By 1916, Fabian societies began to appear in South Africa and elsewhere, with larger organizations cropping up in the 1930s and 40s: the Cape Fabian Society, the Nigerian Labour Study Circle (later Nigerian Fabian Society) and, of course, the notorious London-based Fabian Africa Bureau, Fabian Colonial Bureau and the Movement for Colonial Freedom, all operating in close collaboration with each other for Fabian ends.


Co-founded in 1952 by Fabian Executive member Arthur Creech Jones and Rita Hinden, the Africa Bureau was funded by David Astor and promoted the likes of Nelson Mandela and his communist-controlled African National Congress (ANC) party.


Africa's "freedom movements" (or Socialist takeovers) were part of a wider plan hatched by the Fabian Colonial Bureau which had been established in 1940 by the same Arthur Creech Jones and Rita Hinden, who co-authored the Plan for Africa (1942), laying down sweeping Fabian designs for the continent.


Among the Bureau's many African members was President of Tanzania Julius Nyerere who, having become acquainted with Fabian teachings during his university years in Edinburgh, went on to develop his own socialist theories forming the basis of African Socialism.


Nyerere became co-founder of the internationalist Organization of African Unity, whose successor is the present African Union and its daughter organization the African Economic Community, which aims to reconstruct Africa along the lines of the EU (M. Cole, p. 347; Pugh, pp. 80, 186, 233-4).


The idea of uniting Milner-Fabian-controlled Europe with Milner-Fabian-controlled Africa was embraced in 1960 by the Council on Foreign Relations outfit, the American Committee on United Europe (ACUE) before its funds were diverted to more pressing projects like NATO (Aldrich, p. 210). But the project was never forgotten and work to that end has been quietly carried on ever since, with the result that this enduring Milner-Fabian dream is now set to come true.


In an interview with the North African magazine Jeune Afrique, Olivier Stirn, Sarkozy's adviser for the UfM, and UMP Liaison Officer for the Milner-Fabian instigated African Union, stated:


"My mission is to prove that the UfM is not a moat but a bridge between Europe and Subsaharan Africa ... in reality, President Sarkozy wants to establish a Euro-African axis with the UfM as its core" ("Olivier Stirn", Jeune Afrique, 31 May 2010).


Indeed, we find that, having done extensive work on the Euro-Mediterranean area (Eurabia), the money power's think-tank armada consisting of dozens of operations like CIDOB and associated outfits is now exploring EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) and Eurasia, the next steps in Europe's Orwellian progression towards global government and self-annihilation.


Africa's population will soon reach two billion, hundreds of millions of whom will be free to move to Europe in search of work for the benefit of the money power and its political collaborators, which is why Peter Sutherland has hailed it as a "good thing" (Sutherland, 2012).


Meanwhile, while the money power is extracting financial profit from Mediterranean, Central Asian and African countries, Europe is being forced to accept Islamization through mass immigration and cultural-religious imperialism.


This is the money power's New Deal for Europe and the Western world. Thanks to this deal, Muslim interests' global ambitions have penetrated not only Western stock exchanges, banks and universities but even the once-exclusive world of Western sport.


In Britain alone, the Arab Emirates' Etihad Airways has taken over sponsorship of the Manchester City Football Club and the Harlequins Rugby Club of Twickenham, leading to the renaming of the Manchester and Twickenham stadiums as "Etihad Stadium" and "Etihad Stand", respectively. Similarly, Emirates Airlines (slogan "Fly Emirates") now sponsors cricket and football clubs like Durham County Cricket Club and Arsenal F. C. Predictably enough, this has led to similar renaming of Durham and Islington stadiums as "Emirates".


In short, it is not difficult to see how "Emirates" can one day develop into "Caliphate" on European soil.


ISLAMISM, JIHAD AND THE ISLAMIC WORLD ORDER


The central ideal of Islamic politics has always been the Islamic Empire established in the Middle Ages by prophet Mohammed and his successors, the caliphs. This ideal is closely linked with the concept of Jihad or religious struggle.


The struggle for the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate or State (whether taken in the sense of nation-state or World Empire) has two basic forms, violent and non-violent. While violent Jihad has been termed Jihadism, non-violent Jihad has been termed Islamism (Law, p. 282).


However, both approaches aim to restore the Islamic Empire (Caliphate) and to impose Islamic law (Sharia) on society. Moreover, even non-violent Islamist groups have been known to maintain links to violent groups and their methods have been characterized as "stealth Jihad" (Spencer, p. 15).


The main organizations either founded for the declared purpose of re-establishing the Islamic Empire or embracing this goal after their creation were:


1. The Indian Caliphate Committee.

2. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood.

3. The Pakistani Jamaat-e Islami (Islamic Party).

4. The Palestinian Hizb ut-Tahrir (Liberation Party).


The Caliphate Movement emerged from the Indian Aligarh Movement and the All-India Muslim League, which were connected with the Milner Group, the Fabian Society and Sufi circles. The Muslim League established the All-India Caliphate Committee in 1919 and inspired the Muslim Brotherhood which was created in 1928 by the Sufi Hassan al-Banna. The Muslim Brotherhood soon became the most powerful Islamic movement in the world and later provided the inspiration for terror groups like Hamas and al-Qaeda (Curtis, p. 88; Spencer, p. 14).


The Muslim Brotherhood also inspired its Pakistani equivalent, Jamaat-e Islami (JI), which was founded in 1941 by the Sufi Abul Ala Maududi. Like the Brotherhood, with which it has close ties, Jamaat-e lslami aims to establish a Sharia-based Islamic State. Also like the Brotherhood, it is a political and religious party which runs an extensive network of Islamic schools (madrasas) - the kind of establishments which spawned the Taleban ("students") which works for the creation of an Islamic state in Afghanistan.


Jamaat-e Islami has been linked with fundamentalist guerrilla organizations (mujahideen) operating in Afghanistan like Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) and Jamiat-e Islami Afghanistan (JIA) a.k.a. Islamic Association (IA). In collaboration with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), whose chief Gen. Akhtar Abdul Rehman wanted to create an Islamic state in Afghanistan, JIA was involved in the organization of the Taleban and the creation of al-Qaeda (Pool, pp. 112, 127).


While Jamaat-e Islami leaders are running "educational" institutions in Britain and Europe like the Markfield Institute of Higher Education (MIRE), Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) - which was created in 1953 by the Sufi Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, a Muslim Brotherhood member and protege of al-Husseini - has infiltrated Muslim student societies, particularly at London colleges and universities (Joppke, p. 257).


Like the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e lslami, Hizb ut-Tahrir works for the establishment of a World Islamic Empire (Caliphate).


Indeed, regardless of the means (terror attacks, guerrilla warfare or missionary work) chosen to achieve their objective, the supremacist aim all such organizations have in common is the establishment of an Islamic state in individual countries as a first step towards a World Islamic Empire or Islamic World Order.


It follows that the "grievances" Islamists cite regarding Western "imperialism", "lslamophobia", etc., are just pretexts used to justify their own actions. What irritate them is not the actions of the West, but the West's very existence.


After all, Islam attacked the West from inception, as can be seen from its invasion and conquest of Spain, Italy, Greece and other parts of Europe. The West itself, along with its culture and civilization, is the obstacle standing in the way of the Islamic World Order and is therefore to be destroyed (Huntington, p. 218; Spencer, pp. 32 ff.).


What has changed since then is that, as we have seen, the Islamists are now assisted in their task by our own elites who are advancing the interests of certain financial and political groups at the expense of the common people. With their assistance, Mohammed Morsi, the head of the Brotherhood's political front, the Freedom and Justice Party, became President of Egypt in June 2012 ("Egypt election: Muslim Brotherhood's Mohammed Morsi wins", Daily Telegraph, 24 Jun. 2012).


The fact is that our "liberal democratic" leaders no longer represent our interests, but the interests of our enemies. As ordinary Muslims have nothing to gain from a totalitarian Islamic Empire they too, are victims of this conspiracy.


On balance, we can see that Islamization serves the interests of four key groups:


it advances the religious, political and financial agendas of Islamist groups;

it protects and advances the Western money power's global interests;

it advances the ideological and political agenda of the Left;

it satisfies the deviant psychological needs of culturally displaced and disoriented personalities like Prince Charles, Frances Guy and David Rockefeller.


We can also see that like mass immigration and multiculturalism, Islamization is diametrically opposed to the interests of the Western world's indigenous population. Therefore, it is time for democracy to be restored by uniting and mobilizing civil opposition to the pro-Islamist establishment and its policies.


FROM PROTEST TO RESISTANCE


In his book Stealth Jihad, Robert Spencer lists some measures against Islamization, proposed by US Representative for North Carolina Sue Myrick in 2008, to which he adds his own suggestions. Some of these measures are:


Examine the tax-exempt status of Islamic organizations

Audit Islamic wealth funds involved in economic and cultural warfare against the West

Close down organizations aiming to impose Islamic Sharia law

End Muslim immigration

Take pride in (and promote) Western culture and religion (Spencer, pp. 274-280).


To these we would add:


Identify, expose and end the financial and political establishments' collaboration with Islam.


There is no doubt that the Myrick-Spencer measures are sensible and reasonable enough to be given serious consideration. Given that immigration and multiculturalism are among the main causes of Islamization, the last two are particularly relevant and urgent. The question is, who is to implement these measures?


We have seen that Islamization has powerful allies in the financial and political establishment. In the current climate this is unlikely to change any time soon. On the contrary, as shown above, the money power itself is undergoing an Islamization process.


In the face of the facts, several political leaders, from Britain's David Cameron to Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Nicolas Sarkozy, have publicly admitted that multiculturalism has failed, without however doing anything about it: typically, politicians take up an issue to appease (or deceive) the electorate only to quietly drop it later.


It is not entirely surprising therefore that the establishment's abject failure to address the issue has resulted in what appears to be a growing trend among groups of ordinary citizens to take to the streets in protest.


It should be noted in this connection that while elements of the Western establishment, particularly among those on the Left, aim to create a society dominated by Islam, public opinion polls show that the general public does not wish to live under Islamic domination. Those who oppose Islamization have the moral and legal right, as well as a duty to future generations, to resist Islamization and take measures against it.


Notable among these has been the British organization English Defence League (EDL). Formed in 2009 in the Bedfordshire town of Luton, a notorious centre of Islamism, the EDL has held street demonstrations against Islamic extremism and Islamization.


Predictably, counter-demonstrations have been staged by left-wing groups, clearly showing whose side the Left has chosen to take. In a more disturbing development, leftist-Islamist groups have reportedly hatched plans to attack EDL demonstrators with guns, knives, machetes and explosive devices ("Three men planned to attack English Defence League", BBC News, 10 Jul. 2012).


This clearly exposes the fact that while the political establishment has no democratic means of suppressing opposition to its policies, it undemocratically uses well-organized and well-funded proxies which have included the far-left Unite Against Fascism (UAF) and University Islamic Societies (UIS) - to do so.


But no outside adversity can be as damaging to a movement as internal contradictions and infiltration from within. While opposing Islamization, the EDL has been curiously supporting multiculturalism, at least in public. One vocal supporter on its online forum has been a Sikh activist using the screen name "lionsingh", who apparently also supports Labour because he believes in "free health, education and legal rights for all".


In several television programmes, EDL leader Tommy Robinson (Stephen Lennon) has insisted that it is not multiculturalism which has failed, but religion. In a speech in Chelmsley Wood, Birmingham, he expressed the view that multiculturalism has "worked" with all cultural and religious groups except Islam (Catrin Nye, "Inside the English Defence League leadership", BBC Newsnight, 1 Feb. 2011; "Proud and Prejudiced", Channel 4, 5 Apr. 2011).


But, as we have seen, multiculturalism is one of the causes of Islamization. The basic equation is as follows:


Muslim immigration + High birth rates in the Muslim community + Multiculturalism = Islamization.


In addition, as shown above, Islamization is allowed to happen and even encouraged by the political establishment on the basis of an understanding with oil-producing Islamic regimes instigated by Western oil and other money interests.


Political promises of "free health and education" are not of much use when they are the sugarcoating on the toxic pill of mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamization. Nor are they "free" when there is such a heavy price to pay, namely total cultural and ethnic annihilation.


In short, the causes of Islamization are clear and easy to understand. Logically speaking, those who are fighting Islamization ought to also be fighting the causes of Islamization.


Tommy Robinson has also stated, "We know who our masters are. We just want them to do their job properly" (Collins, p. 31).


Unfortunately, for the above-stated reasons, the ruling order believes it is its job to make Western society multicultural, multiracial, multireligious and dominated by Islam. It follows that expecting "our masters" to do their job properly is like expecting the wolves to guard the sheep.


To be sure, the EDL leadership has proven capable of learning from experience: having at first opposed radical Islam only, it was quick to acknowledge the wider dangers of Islamization. It now needs to see that immigration and multiculturalism are key factors in the relentless spread of Islam and that Islam has powerful and ruthless allies in the financial and political world who will not be dissuaded by mere street demonstrations.


Certainly, the tactic of opposing Islamization while apparently supporting its causes is not only confusing to potential followers but, ultimately, self-defeating.


Such contradictions are not restricted to the EDL. Supposedly "centre-right" groups around the world, including political parties, are plagued by similar self-contradictory thinking (Caldwell, 2009). This is due to the general political disorientation and confusion prevalent in Western society as much as to the vested interests of self-appointed leaders and infiltration from the left.


While the formation of new political mass organizations has become an absolute imperative and breaking the undemocratic monopoly of established parties is a step forward, real progress is only possible if the new organizations understand their task - the defeat of the Left on all fronts, cultural, political, religious and economic, and the re-establishment of Righteousness - and devise clear and unambiguous programmes to that effect.


In Britain, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) must show that it is willing and able to shed the Milner-Fabian baggage which hampers its efforts and fight for the restoration of Britain as an Indigenous Christian Monarchy. Alternatively, England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales could become closely allied, yet independent, Christian kingdoms with their own cultural and ethnic identities.


Meanwhile, there is a growing feeling among opponents of Islamization that the efforts of organizations like EDL are inadequate and that a more revolutionary approach is needed. As a result, some have attempted to take the anti-Islamization movement to the stage of active resistance.


A controversial figure among these is the Norwegian Anders Breivik. In July 2011, Breivik, who believes that the EDL is "dangerously narve", carried out armed attacks on government buildings in Oslo and on a summer camp on Utoya island which was run by Norway's ruling Labour Party.


The targeting of innocent citizens should of course be universally condemned by the international community. Lamentably, the moral relativism (or Doublethink) of Fabian dominated modem society has given rise to a perverse and reprehensible political climate in which the killing of some civilians is condemned whereas the killing of other civilians is celebrated, depending on the victims' political persuasion and their support for or opposition to the money power and its political collaborators.


Thus, the Left-controlled British Heritage Foundation has chosen to erect a monument to members of Bomber Command - who were responsible for the firebombing of German civilians in World War II -with the blessings of the political establishment. The construction of the monument has been celebrated by the same jingoistic press which has denounced Breivik's actions ("Memorial to WWII bombers takes off", The Sun, 10 May 2012).


The problem is that if one side can claim that "the end justifies the means", so can the other.


The Breivik case raises other wider issues that cannot be suppressed or ignored in spite of attempts by the political establishment to do so. Britain's leading criminologist, Professor David Wilson, has acknowledged a widespread disquiet in Norwegian society driven by "concerns that Norway's national identity and traditional culture are under threat from mass immigration, multiculturalism and militant Islam" (Wilson, 2011).


The logical implication is that the Socialist regime which has ruled the country for decades must be at least partly responsible for this state of affairs. And if that is the case, then Breivik, unlike the EDL, correctly identified the ruling Labour Party as the culprit.


Equally important is not to lose sight of the financial interests behind the political leadership. Norway's Prime Minister from 2005 to 2013, Jens Stoltenberg, is an economist and former Finance Minister. Jens' father, Thorvald Stoltenberg, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, is a trustee of the globalist, pro-immigration and pro-Islamization FRIDE which counts among its partners leading elements of the money power like George Soros (see above).


Similarly, among the participants at the 2008 Trilateral Commission meeting in Paris, which praised the internationalist policies of Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy, were:


Elsbeth Tronstad is the executive director of the Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise (NHO) and a former vice-president of ABB in Oslo


and Marianne Lie is a consultant to Norsk Investorforum and a member of the European Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission.


(It will be recalled that rule by self-styled "economic experts" backed by international finance has been a Socialist dream from the days of Karl Marx and Sidney Webb and that finance and foreign ministers, as well as leaders of industry, business and banking, have come to represent the interests of self-seeking national and international elite groups.)


The first lesson to be drawn from all this is that it is imperative for any resistance movement to correctly identify both the causes and the right solutions - which must reflect the movement's democratic nature and objectives. No real progress is possible without a correct understanding of the situation, of the task before us and of the actions required to achieve the desired results.


The situation is that Western society has changed beyond recognition because the political system has thus changed and this in turn is due to the system's take-over by anti-democratic forces. This means that in addition to the formation of new parties (and the reformation of established ones), a more comprehensive approach is needed which makes use of new forms of political organization and action and which involves larger sections of society than is generally expected.


The world's anti-colonial and independence movements are an invaluable source of guidance and information. They show what nations can achieve through education, organization and mobilization, while giving hope and inspiration to lovers of true democracy and freedom.


Information on non-violent methods of political organization and action may be obtained from sources as diverse as Hans von Dach "Total Resistance" (download) and Gene Sharp "Waging Nonviolent Struggle" (download) (see References and pp. 361, 404 ff., above).


Nor is indigenous disquiet over mass immigration, multiculturalism and particularly Islamization, restricted to Norway. It can be observed all over Europe (Caldwell, p. 95) and is bound to increase together with its causes and the growing realization among ordinary citizens that the Socialist Nanny State has turned into a monster that is devouring its charge.


It is in the nature of things that monsters will eventually be slain. The Establishment's refusal to respond to legitimate public concern can only result in rising tension and, ultimately, open conflict.


Professor Wilson's analysis together with data from other countries dominated by the toxic mix of Socialism and Islamism shows that cracks are beginning to appear in the Fabian Window used by the Establishment to cloak the horrors of modem "liberal democracy" in a deceptive light. They are to be welcomed and made wider so that the light of truth can shine through in its full glory and bring true democracy and freedom to the world.


Select list of official Online Sources related to the Barcelona Process / MU:

European Commission: www.ec.europa.eu

Council of the EU: www.consilium.europa.eu

EU External Action (Foreign & Security Policy): www.eeas.europa.eu

Mediterranean Commission: www.commed-cglu.org

MEDEA: www.medea.be

CIDOB Foundation: www.cidob.org

IEMed Institute: www.iemed.org

Mediterranean Foundation: www.fondazionemediterraneo.org

Anna Lindh Foundation: www.euromedalex.org

UN Alliance of Civilizations: www.unaoc.org

FEMISE: www.femise.org

Spanish Government Gazette: www.boe.es

Barcelona Conference 1995: www.eeas.europa.eu

Barcelona Conference 2005: www.euromedbarcelona.org

Marseilles Conference 2008: www.ue2008.fr

Paris Conference 2008: www.consilium.europa.eu

Paris Conference 2010: www.euromed.eurosur.org

Euro-Mediterranean Conferences: www.eeas.europa.eu

Documents of the Barcelona Process: www.euromed-seminars.org


Mediterranean Politics journal:

http://myblogs.informa.com/medpol/mediterranean-politics/

http://joumals.academia.edu/MediterraneanPolitics


NOTES


1. Classical European culture, in particular, philosophy, was central to the Renaissance movement. In contrast, philosophy was not a genuine growth within Islam but was brought into it from the outside, drawing from European sources (A. H. Armstrong, ed., The Cambridge History ofLater Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, Cambridge, 1967, pp. 644-9).


2. The original Sufis (Greek sophos, pl. sophoi) were followers of the Classical World's wisdom (sophfa) tradition which later fused with Christianity. Early Christian philosophers and mystics (Justin Martyr, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, etc.) were steeped in Classical lore.


Medieval Muslim scholars like Averroes (lbn Rushd), who were learned in Christian Hellenism, admitted that "Everything has been perfectly examined by the ancient masters. All we need to do is to go back to their books".


Unfortunately, although initially taken over wholesale (see the translation movement from the 8th to the 10th centuries) non-Islamic culture soon began to be suppressed or misappropriated for proselytizing purposes. Thus, while genuine Sufis were forced to go underground under Muslim occupation (cf. Smith, p. 124), bogus "Sufi masters" were responsible for the advance of Islam among non-Muslims.


REFERENCES

Aldrich, Richard J., "OSS, CIA and European Unity: The American Committee on United Europe, 1948-60", International History Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, London, Nov. 1995.

Algar, Hamid, Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations ofImam Khomeini, North Haledon, NJ, 1981.

Anderson, Jack, "Details of Aramco Papers Disclosed", Washington Post, 28 Jan. 1974.

Attali, Jacques, Karl Marx ou l'esprit du monde, Paris, 2005.

Attali, Jacques, Domain, qui gouvemera le monde? Paris, 2011.

Beitone, Alain, "La 'loi Pompidou, Giscard, Rothschild' votee en 1973 empecharait l'Etat de batter monnaie", Le Monde, 29 Dec. 2011.

Bicchi, Federica & Gillespie, Richard, eds., The Union for the Mediterranean, Abingdon, Oxon, 2012.

Bremner, Charles, and Charter, David, "French far-right signs up to take Putin's shilling", The Times, 25 Nov. 2014.

Caldwell, Christopher, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, London, 2009.

Callaghan, John, The Labour Party and Foreign Policy: A History, Abingdon, Oxon, 2007.

Cobain, lain, Taylor, Matthew and Harding, Luke, "I am plotting a new Russian Revolution", Guardian, 13 Apr. 2007.

Coignard, Sophie & Guichard, Marie-Therese, Les bonnes frequentations: Histoire secrete des reseaux d'influence, Paris, 1997.

Cole, Margaret, The Story ofFabian Socialism, London, 1961.

Collier, Peter & Horowitz, David, The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, London, 1976.

Curtis, Mark, Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam, London, 2010.

De Villemarest, Pierre, A /'ombre de Wall Street. Complicites et financements soviho-nazis (In the Shadow of Wall Street: Soviet-Nazi Collaboration and Financing), Paris, 1996.

De Villemarest, Pierre, Facts & Chronicles Denied To The Public, vols. 1 & 2, 2003; English trans. Slough, Berkshire, 2004.

Ferguson, Niall, The House ofRothschild, New York, NY, 2000.

Gillespie, Richard, "Adapting to French 'Leadership'? Spain's Role in the Union for the Mediterranean", Mediterranean Politics, vol. 16, issue 1, March 2011, reproduced in F. Bicchi & R. Gillespie, The Union for the Mediterranean, pp. 57-77.

Hall, Elisabeth, "The Sufi Tradition: A conversation with Idries Shah", Psychology Today, July 1975.

Healey, Denis, The Time ofMy Life, London, 2006.

Heine, Heinrich, Religion and Philosophy in Germany, Engl. trans. John Snodgrass, Boston, MA, 1959.

Hersh, Seymour, "Saudi Oil Capacity Questioned", New York Times, 4 Mar. 1979.

Hobbs, Bill, "Is Soros Using Environmental Scare Tactics To Gain Control of Gold Mine?" NewsBuster, 10 Dec. 2007.

Holden, Patrick, "A New Beginning? Does the Union for the Mediterranean Herald a New Functionalist Approach to Cooperation in the Region?", Mediterranean Politics, vol. 16, issue 1, March 2011, reproduced in F. Bicchi & R. Gillespie, eds., The Union for the Mediterranean, Abingdon, Oxon, 2012, pp. 153-167.

Horowitz, David & Poe, Richard, The Shadow Party, Nashville, TN, 2006.

Huntington, Samuel, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York, NY, 1996.

Khan, Vilayat, Toward The One, 1974.

Johansson-Nogues, Elisabeth, "The UfM's Institutional Structure: Making Inroads towards 'Co-Ownership'?" Mediterranean Politics, vol. 16, issue 1, March 2011, reproduced in F. Bicchi & R. Gillespie, eds., The Union for the Mediterranean, Abingdon, Oxon, 2012, pp. 19-36.

Joppke, Christian, Immigration and the Nation-State, New York, NY, 1999.

Knortz, Heike, Dip/omatische Tauschgeschiifte. ,,Gastarbeiter" in der westdeutschen Diplomatie und Beschiiftigungspolitik 1953-1973 (Diplomatic Barter: "Guestworkers" in West German Diplomacy and Employment Politics 1953-1973), Cologne, 2008.

Kobzova, Jana & Alieva, Leila, "The EU And Azerbaijan: Beyond Oil", ECFR Policy Memo, May 2012.

Lannon, Erwan & Martin, Ivan, Report on the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership Status & Progress 2009, Barcelona, 2009.

Law, Randall D., Terrorism: A History, Cambridge, 2009.

Lewis, Bernard, Islam and the West, New York, NY, 1993.

Luther, Martin, Preface to Theodor Bibliander's Edition of the Quran, 1543, German Weimar Edition of Luther's Works (WA) 53:569-572.

Martin, James, director and producer, Revolution in Oxford, short propaganda film, June 2012 www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/webcast/201206_Martin_Revolution.mp4

Martin, Rose, Fabian Freeway: High Road to Socialism in the USA, Chicago, IL, 1966.

Milstein, Uri, History of the War ofIndependence, 1996, vol. 1. 2003.

Molenat, Jacques, "Un franc-ma<;on circonspect", L 'Express, 13 Apr. 2006.

Monnet, Jean, Memoirs, London, 1976.

Morton, Frederic, The Rothschilds: A Family Portrait, London, 1963.

Muir, William, Apology ofa/-Kindy, English trans. London, 1887.

Mullins, Eustace, The Secrets of the Federal Reserve: The London Connection, Carson City, NV, 1991; www.barefootsworld.net

Pargeter, Alison, The New Frontiers of Jihad: Radical Islam in Europe, London, 2008.

Pool, H. John, Militant Tricks, Emerald Isle, NC, 2005.

Prince of Wales, Charles, "Islam and the West", The Prince of Wales Speeches and Articles, 27 Oct. 1993 www.princeofwales.gov.uk

Prince of Wales, Charles, "A Sense of the Sacred in the Modern World, Invest Corp Dinner, London", The Prince ofWales Speeches and Articles, 10 Jul. 1996.

Prince of Wales, Charles, "A sense of the sacred: building bridges between Islam and the West", The Prince of Wales Speeches and Articles, 13 Dec. 1996.

Prince of Wales, Charles, "Speech during visit to The Islamic Foundation, The Markfield Institute of Higher Education", The Prince of Wales

Speeches and Articles, 24 Jan. 2003. Prince of Wales, "Unity in Faith", The Prince of Wales Speeches and Articles, 21 Mar. 2006.

Prince of Wales, Charles, "Islam and the Environment", The Prince of Wales Speeches and Articles, 9 Jun. 2010.

Quigley, Carroll, The Anglo-American Establishment: From Rhodes to Cliveden, GSG & Associates, San Pedro, CA, 1981.

Remnick, David, The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama, London & New York, 2010.

Rockefeller, David, Memoirs, New York, NY, 2002.

Rosenthal, Franz, The Classical Heritage ofIslam, London, 1975.

Sahas, D. J., John of Damascus on Islam: the "Heresy of the Ishmaelites ", Leiden, 1972; online version http://orthodoxinfo.com/general!stjohn_islam.aspx

Sharp, Gene, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, part 2, The Methods of Nonviolent Action, Boston, MA, 1973.

Sharp, Gene, Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 201h Century Practice and 2I51 Century Potential, Manchester, NH, 2005.

Sklar, Holly, Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Government, Boston, MA, 1980.

Slater, Robert, Soros: The Unauthorized Biography, New York, NY, 1996.

Smith, Margaret, The Way of the Mystics: The Early Christian Mystics and the Rise of the Sufis (originally published in 1931 as Studies in Early Mysticism in the Near and Middle East), London, 1976.

Soros, George, Soros on Soros: Staying Ahead of the Curve, Hoboken, NJ, 1995.

Soros, George, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, London, 2000.

Soros, George, George Soros on Globalization, Cambridge, MA, 2002.

Note: while researching the present study, the author on 22 April 2012 came across several FT articles related to Rothschild-Soros links and the Newmont case; minutes later, all issues from 14 September 1992 to 2 October 1993 were inexplicably withdrawn from the FT online archive; the articles in question were still unretrievable on 12 July 2012. However, the facts of the Newmont case may be gathered from related articles published by The Sunday Times (25 Apr., 15 Aug. 1993), The Times (26, 29 Apr. 1993) and Bloomberg Businessweek (23 Aug. 1993). Spencer, Robert, Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs, Washington, DC, 2008.

Stirn, Olivier, Mes Presidents. 50 ans au service de la Ve Republique, Paris, 2004.

Sutherland, Peter, "A Constructive Attitude to Migration is a Moral Issue", Address to the International Eucharistic Congress, Dublin, 15 June 2012.

Sutton, Antony C., Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, first published in New York, 1974, reprinted in Forest Row, East Sussex, 2011.

Sutton, Antony C. & Wood, Patrick M., Trilaterals Over Washington, Scottsdale, AZ, 1979.

Tan, Shaun, "Dangerous Liaisons: Just how tight are our universities with authoritarian governments?" The Politic, 21 Apr. 2012.

Trilateral Commission (Europe), Meeting Summary, 32°d European Regional Meeting, Paris, 7-9 November 2008.

Trilateral Commission (Europe), Europe's Response to the Arab Awakening. Contributions by European Members to the Panel Discussion, 35th European Regional Meeting, The Hague, 11-13 November 2011.

Von Dach, Hans, Total Resistance, first published in 1957, Boulder, CO, 1965.

Wilson, David, "The changes he saw all around him fed his warped sense of injustice", Daily Mail, 24 July, 2011. Yapp, M. E., The Near East Since The First World War, Harlow, 1991.

Ye'or, Bat, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison, NJ, 2006.