The general public looks at modern history and sees a series of apparently unconnected events; World War 1, World War 2 and the Holocaust, the creation of Israel, the creation of NATO and the series of wars in South East Asia, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and the terrorist attacks on 11th September 2001. But these global scale events strongly support the thesis that they are all part of a masterplan for three world wars that has been attributed to the top Freemason Albert Pike. In this plan the third world war is supposed to be between Zionism and Islam, with the rest of the world joining in having been divided by the conflict between the two for decades. The creation of Israel, the division of the world between pro-Israel and anti-Israel, and 9/11 all fit this plan perfectly.
However, there are other events that could be classed as global scale that do not fit this plan. Two events that come to my mind occured in the 1960's, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the USS Liberty. the Cuban Missile Crisis could have quite easily led to a nuclear war between the USA and the USSR, but the Kennedys negotiated a peaceful settlement. There is speculation that JFK was assassinated by extreme right wing factions in the USA because he betrayed the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Cubans were alleged to be in and around the circles of those suspected as the organisers of the assassination. But there is also speculation that JFK was assassinated because he was withdrawing from South East Asia which would not have been in the Pike plan. LBJ got the USA embroiled in Vietnam with a false flag event, the alleged Gulf of Tonkin attack by North Vietnam on the USS Maddox. LBJ did not invade Cuba. This implies the motive to assassinate JFK was Vietnam, not Cuba. RFK was allegedly assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian. Sirhan was actually a mind-controlled patsy who could not have shot RFK. Cubans were not involved in this plot but there were suggestions that several CIA officers who worked at the anti-Castro CIA station in Miami were present at the assassination. One of these men is alleged to have said, "I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard." This obviously implies a Bay of Pigs motive. But why did it take so long to get RFK? RFK was at the time running for the Presidency on a strong anti-Vietnam War policy that was uniting black and white. RFK was also building a strong relationship with Martin Luther King, particularly over Vietnam. MLK was also assassinated. So of the three major assassinations in the USA in the 1960's, two could be linked to Cuba, but all three could be linked to Vietnam, with the Cuban motive being used to get the two Kennedys.
The attack on the USS Liberty was done by Israel. For what purpose? Was it a false flag attack, to blame Egypt? Or, as the USS Liberty Memorial website suggests, Israel feared that the Liberty might intercept intelligence on massacres that Israel was committing at the time, or Israeli plans to invade the Golan? Israel has admitted to the attack, but has not confessed the reason, claiming that the Liberty resembled an Egyptian ship.
Since the 1960's the issue of Israel and the Palestinians has been dividing the world. The USA is dominated by the Israeli lobby. There is very strong evidence that the attacks on 9/11 were an inside job, involving elements of US, Israeli and Saudi Arabian intelligence, the purpose of which was to kick off a series of wars on seven nations in five years, as revealed to General Wesley Clark. Clark has also revealed that the plan for such a war could have been hatched as far back as 1991, when Paul Wolfowitz, who would become the focus of the cabal that ran a foreign policy coup after 9/11, stated to Clark that the USA had 5 to 10 years to take out those old Soviet client regimes, Iraq, Iran and Syria before the next superpower came along. Lo and behold, 10 years after this conversation, when Wolfowitz and fellow Zionists were in charge of the US military, four planes were allegedly hijacked and flown at high profile targets, but one was blown out of the sky. The seven nations named to Clark were generally anti-Zionist, and had been named in Zonist documents pre-9/11 for war. These were Iraq, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Libya. Sudan and Somalia were also named to Clark. There have been a few conferences in London on Somalia of late.
But for what purpose would Israel attack the USA with the complicity of factions within the USA? Francesco Cossiga has stated that many in Europe and the USA know that this is the case.
There is land, and with that comes natural resources. The initial plan of Eretz Israel as presented at early Zionist conferences shows the plan for an Israel much larger than it is now, taking in parts of Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
According to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, “the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.” According to Rabbi Fischmann, “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
[source : “Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815, 2nd March 2013]
The plans for war proposed in A Clean Break are but a subset of plans for a more general all out war on Israel's neighbours and beyond proposed in The Yinon Plan, which explains the presence of Sudan on the list of seven nations to be attacked in five years. But one of the nations that is destined for eventual break up is Saudi Arabia.
Nafeez Ahmed has written in The Guardian today that the wars are principally about oil and gas, with climate change playing a minor role for the protests. Ahmed potentially takes the conflict back to 1975 when Henry Kissinger signed an agreement with Israel to guarantee Israel's energy needs. Ahmed describes the transit for oil from the Caspian to Europe. One pipeline goes from Iran through Iran then Syria then Lebanon and onto Europe. Another goes from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey. However, both routes have the same source, the South Pars gas field that links Qatar and Iran by its position under the Persian Gulf, and is the world's largest gas field. Iran has the second largest reserves of gas after Russia, who has been defending (sort of) Syria and Iran. After describing Syria as ravaged by drought, IMF reforms, high food prices and violence (which Ahmed attributes to Assad!), Ahmed concludes:
The origins of Syria's 'war by proxy' are therefore unmistakeable - the result of converging climate, oil and debt crises within a politically repressive state, the conflict's future continues to be at the mercy of rival foreign geopolitical interests in dominating the energy corridors of the Middle East and North Africa.
But whoever wins this New Great Game, the Syrian people will end up losing.
As other oil exporters in the region approach production limits, and as climate change continues to wreak havoc in the world's food basket regions, policy makers should remember that without deep-seated transformation of the region's political and economic structures, Syria's plight today may well offer a taste of things to come.
[source : Peak oil, climate change and pipeline geopolitics driving Syria conflict, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/13/1, 13th May 2013]
But what it all reduces to is this; how do you trick your fellow man into fighting each other for your benefit?
If we take the Satanist plan for three world wars, then any old trick will do, just as long as there is a major war to finally destroy all national sovereignty in favour of a tyrannical world government. The oil and gas of North Africa, the Middle East and The Caspian Basin are rich and fantastic natural resources to do battle over, with the promises of riches beyond man's wildest dreams deriving from their control (particularly if the world is cooling rather than warming).
Gideon Rachman, he who proclaimed "And Now For World Government" a few years ago, has today praised Obama for ducking out of direct military intervention in Syria.
In more recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US and its allies vastly overestimated their knowledge of the societies in which they were intervening. Mr Rumsfeld met Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi opposition leader, and thought he understood the future of Iraq. Reality proved more complicated.
Even if the US believes it has identified genuine “good guys” to supply with weapons in Syria, there is no knowing whether they will have the ability to retain power, after the fall of President Bashar al-Assad. The lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan are to be humble about what can be achieved – and realistic about the extent of the commitment that may be needed, if the US ultimately decides that it has to act.
The fact that Mr Obama is refusing to respond to calls for “tough action” in Syria now is not a sign that he is a weak leader – it is a sign that he is a good leader.
[source : Staying out of Syria is the bolder call for Obama, FT, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/371d8de6-bbba-11e2-a4b4-00144feab7de.html#axzz2TFRO8kWn, 13th May 2013]
Is this some kind of mind game? Or are the Anglo-American Establishment playing for time, to reinforce, re-finance and re-arm the rebels while calling for Assad to ceasefire, before the peace talks are deliberately broken off, for whatever (false flag) reason?
The fact is that we as a gullible human race were tricked into fighting two world wars to eventually get the United Nations established and accepted as a de facto world government, that is gradually encroaching upon and dominating our lives as each day goes by. Taxes for this, taxes for that, taxes for the other. Control over this, control over that, control over the other, Surveillance for this, surveillance for that, surveillance for the other. There is a relentless acceleration towards centralised world government.
The concept of Israel was so rejected by Jews that not even the Nazi monster Adolf Hitler could scare German Jews to transfer to Palestine in an agreement reached between the Nazis, the Zionists and Great Britain. Only 10% took up the offer. The declaration of war on Hitler stopped this transfer and led to the Holocaust which eventually persuaded a sceptical world Jewry that Palestine was the only safe haven for them from a cruel and harsh world (that was in fact controlled by the Rothschilds).
All major global events in the last and current centuries have played a part in guiding history to this point. The events of 11th September 2001 were so huge and fit the Pike plan for world war three that the probability that those events were designed to provoke the Zionism v Islam war is more than 3/4. However, Ahmed's reference to oil and gas do have some merit, but as I suggest, in order to trick us into fighting each other the spoils of war are promised.
