Jew World Order

Yesterday, I was skimming through the headlines of an alternative news sight when I saw the headline: “Largest Leak Ever: Whistleblower Reveals Global Elite Crime Network”. Upon reading this headline, my first reaction was to think to myself: “Did they really finally blow the lid off on the whole Globalist operation?”

Intrigued by such a provocative headline, I read through the article which detailed the recently leaked (April 3^rd 2016) “Panama Papers”- 2.6 terabytes of leaked data from Mossack Fonseca, a law firm in Panama that sells anonymous offshore companies around the world. An anonymous insider leaked the data to the German newspaper, Süddeutsche Zeitung. The article (which was just a reposting of the original Süddeutsche Zeitung article) stated that

The (Panama Papers) provide(s) rare insights into a world that can only exist in the shadows. It proves how a global industry led by major banks, legal firms, and asset management companies secretly manages the estates of the world’s rich and famous: from politicians, Fifa officials, fraudsters and drug smugglers, to celebrities and professional athletes.

At the end of the article there was a link to the main “Panama Papers” website, which was a well-polished, expensive-looking setup with professionally done graphics and illustrations. Obviously some money went into this thing, which was my first red flag. The Panama Papers site is posted on the Süddeutsche Zeitung news website. Süddeutsche Zeitung itself was the first newspaper to receive a license from the U.S. military administration of Bavaria on October 6^th, 1945. The first issue was published the same evening, and its first article began with the following statement:

For the first time since the collapse of the brown rule of terror, a newspaper run by Germans is published in Munich. It is limited by the political necessities of our days, but it is not bound by censorship, nor gagged by constraints of conscience.

Süddeutsche Zeitung is owned by Südwestdeutsche Medien Holding (Southwest German Media Holding), one of the largest media companies in Germany. Recently the validity of news media in Germany has come under fire with the publication of the book “Gekaufte Journalisten” or “Bought Journalists”. Written by former German news editor, Udo Ulfkotte, the book details how during his time working as the editor one of Germany’s largest newspapers, Ulfkotte explains how he was secretly paid by the CIA and the German Secret Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst ) to spin particular news stories in a way that was favorable for the agendas of the U.S. and NATO, while painting its enemies in a negative light. It was also made clear that this wasn’t an isolated incident, but rather a common practice in the mainstream German media and Europe as a whole.

The practice of painting the enemies of the U.S., NATO, Corporate Globalism, and International Finance Capital as “evil doers” by the media is nothing new, and Süddeutsche Zeitung and its Panama Papers are most certainly carrying this out in spades. At the top of the list in nearly every article talking about the Panama Papers and the “shady deals” highlighted within is the West’s favorite boogeyman, Vladimir Putin. While Putin himself is not named in the papers, several of his associates are, with the media running with a “guilt-by-association” meme.

By now, most are aware of the consistent demonization of Putin in the media. A staunch nationalist, Putin is labeled by multiple media pundits as “The New Hitler”. Former Deputy Secretary of State and the current CEO of Brookings Incorporated (one of the most influential think tanks in the U.S. and is staunchly pro-Globalism), Strobe Talbott, wrote in a Politico article that “what’s new about Putinism” is “the ultra-nationalist proposition that Russian statehood should be based on ethnicity.” Talbott stated that Russia under Putin “is a potential threat to world peace.”

Putin has opposed the globalist aims of the U.S., NATO, and their financial and corporate shareholders on nearly every turn. From exposing the U.S./NATO support of radical Muslim extremists in Syria to its position of leadership within the BRICS coalition, attempting to break up the financial hegemony of the U.S., the IMF and the World Bank, Putin has been a constant thorn in the side of Globalism.

Because of all of this, Putin is demonized at every turn by the Western news media as well as in Hollywood (who also are often “supervised” by the CIA). Putin’s Russia even got a cameo appearance in the new “Superman” movie, with the hero stopping the launch of a nuclear missile with a Russian flag on the side of it.

Of course, Putin was not the only one named. A recent CNBC article stated that “The (Panama Papers) reveal details of secret offshore companies linked to families and associates of Egypt’s former president Hosni Mubarak, Libya’s former leader Muammar Gaddafi and Syria’s president Bashar Assad, among others.”

Mubarak and Gaddafi were both casualties of the 2011 “Arab Spring” in which multiple “color revolutions” were provocateured in North Africa and the Middle East by the U.S., NATO, Israel and the Arab oil barons. Mubarak, an opponent of aggression towards Iran was replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood (who have alleged ties to Obama’s family in Kenya), and eventually died somewhat “mysteriously” while in prison. Hosni Mubarak was also a nationalist. Mubarak de-emphasized Arab nationalism and re-emphasized Egyptian nationalism based on Egypt’s distinctiveness within the Arab world.

Muammar Gaddafi was taken out by “Libyan rebels” who turned out to be trained Al Qaeda militants out of Saudi Arabia. Gaddafi also committed the cardinal sin of opposing Globalism. According to CounterPunch.org, a long standing alternative news site:

Libya was using its oil wealth to gradually close the doors to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the hegemony of the U.S. dollar in the economic domination of Africa… Gaddafi’s determination to eliminate Africa’s dependence on Western financial institutions was one of the most serious threats faced by global capitalism. Gaddafi was not only in the process of creating the African Investment Bank (providing interest-free loans to African nations) and the African Monetary Fund (to be centred in Cameroon) and eliminating the role of the IMF. It was also in the planning stages of creating a new, gold-backed African currency that would seriously weaken the U.S. by undermining the dollar.

Gaddafi, like Mubarak, was a nationalist, ultimately putting precedence of the well-being of his nation over the aims of globalism. Another man who falls into this category is Bashar Assad, who was also another intended casualty of the “Arab Spring”; however things have proven a bit more difficult for the Western powers on that front.

Assad’s Syria had control of its own money supply and its own natural resources. Under the Globalist system, these are things that must be “outsourced”. Likewise, Assad’s Syria proudly sought to maintain its cultural uniqueness and national identity, and was not too friendly with the Turkey/Saudi/Israeli power bloc in the region. Assad was also an ally of Iran, another major thorn in the side of Globalism in the Middle East. This put a target on Assad’s back and has subject Syria to a vicious destabilization campaign by the U.S., NATO and their allies, who have armed Islamic militants in the region through operations like the Benghazi U.S. Embassy raid and the ongoing Fast and Furious international gun-running operation.

On the other side of the world, Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson, is resisting increasing pressure to resign after the Panama Papers revealed that he and his wealthy partner, now wife, had set up a company in 2007 in the British Virgin Islands through Mossack Fonseca, the law firm whose clientele are the subjects of this alleged scandal. So why would the Prime Minister of Iceland be a target for potential regime change? Let’s go back to an article out of the London Guardian from October 2013:

A new mood of proud nationalism is emerging in economically resurgent Iceland after an out-of-control banking system sank the country into financial meltdown exactly five years ago. Riding this wave of confidence is 38-year-old prime minister, Sigmundur Davíd Gunnlaugsson, elected in April on populist promises of mortgage relief for every homeowner.

Gunnlaugsson earned his spurs in years of outspoken campaigning against the foreign creditors who still haunt Iceland…

It was a spat that, against the odds, Iceland won. While many other politicians in Iceland had urged a policy of appeasing the enraged British and Dutch governments, Gunnlaugsson had insisted they should go hang. ‘Icelanders, as descendants of the Vikings, are highly individualistic and have difficulty putting up with authorities, let alone oppression,’ he said in one of his first speeches as prime minister on Iceland’s Independence Day in June this year.

A 2012 article entitled “Top Economists: Iceland Did It Right … And Everyone Else Is Doing It Wrong” quotes top economist, Paul Krugman:

What [Iceland’s recovery] demonstrated was the … case for letting creditors of private banks gone wild eat the losses… A funny thing happened on the way to economic Armageddon: Iceland’s very desperation made conventional behavior impossible, freeing the nation to break the rules. Where everyone else bailed out the bankers and made the public pay the price, Iceland let the banks go bust and actually expanded its social safety net. Where everyone else was fixated on trying to placate international investors, Iceland imposed temporary controls on the movement of capital to give itself room to maneuver.

This scenario has its roots in the E.U. debt crisis that brought the economy of Greece to its knees and allowed foreign investors to come in and buy up Greek islands for pennies on the dollar. This was a crisis caused by the actions of International Finance Capital with banks like Goldman-Sachs at the helm. But while these nations were capitulating to International Finance calling in debts that the people of the nations were wrongfully signed onto, we have this little nation thumbing its nose to the will of International Finance Capital – the real might behind Globalism. And in the middle of it all was a staunchly nationalistic populist who then became Prime Minister of that nation. Now this man is being pressured to resign over alleged “conflict of interest”.

So far, we seem to have a pattern established where enemies of International Finance Capital and Corporate Globalism are being targeted by what is being made out by the international press to be a sort of Wikileaks/Snowden on steroids. But then what about British Prime Minister David Cameron? Cameron is another “guilt-by-association” name involved in the Panama Papers, who is now having the heat turned up on him due to his father’s alleged involvement with Mossack Fonseca. At first, seeing his name seemed to throw a wrench in my evolving hypothesis that these “leaks” are specifically aimed at further demonizing and in some cases, even eliminating through public pressure, enemies of Globalism. Cameron had always seemed like he “went along with the program”. But alas, there is trouble in paradise.

Apparently Cameron has been flirting with the notion of Britain leaving the E.U. in some form or fashion for quite some time. An article out of “Foreign Affairs Magazine” sharply criticized Cameron’s “dangerous game”:

Despite his innate caution and usually sound political instincts, British Prime Minister David Cameron is gambling with his country’s future. In January, in a long-anticipated speech, he called for a wide-ranging renegotiation of the terms of the United Kingdom’s membership in the European Union and promised to put the result up for a straight in-or-out popular referendum by the end of 2017… A British exit from the EU is now more likely than ever — and it would be disastrous not only for the United Kingdom but also for the rest of Europe and the United States.

If London does ultimately cut the rope, it will not be the result of rational political or economic calculations. British Euroskepticism boils down to a visceral dislike of Brussels — the host of a number of European institutions and the EU’s de facto capital — on the part of an ill-informed conservative minority that clings to an antiquated notion of national sovereignty…

For those not familiar, “Foreign Affairs” is the magazine of The Council on Foreign Relations. The Council on Foreign Relations or “CFR” is a think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs, whose membership has included senior politicians, more than a dozen secretaries of state, CIA directors, bankers, lawyers, professors, and senior media figures. The CFR promotes globalization, free trade, reducing financial regulations on transnational corporations, and economic consolidation into regional blocs such as NAFTA or the European Union, and develops policy recommendations that reflect these goals.

The fate of whether or not Britain will stay in the E.U. will be given to the people for a vote on the 23^rd of June this year. While Cameron is urging a “yes” vote, many are chastising him for caving to “right-wing nationalists” who have been gaining momentum in the U.K., who say that membership to the E.U. is a costly burden on the tax payers that brings excessive regulations from an un-elected, un-accountable bureaucracy, as well as excessive migration that is rapidly altering the demographics of the island nation.

Now there are a whole slew of other names who allegedly used the services of Mossack Fonseca for the purposes of “tax-avoidance”, and I would be willing to bet nearly all of them have found themselves on the wrong side of International Finance Capital and Corporate Globalism in some way or another. When one considers the fact that most of the “taxes” are being payed to Central Banks that are owned by international private banking interests, we realize this “scandal” is more akin to the mafia looking to take out smaller, rival gangs.

Now what of the Panamanian law firm that sold these alleged shell corporations? Apparently the firm was started by Jürgen Mossack, who was born in Germany, but raised and educated in Panama after his father, Erhard, moved the family to Latin America at the end of World War II. According to an article out of “The Atlantic”,

Erhard Mossack served in the Waffen-SS during the war. According to the ICIJ (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists), U.S. intelligence files show he offered to spy for the U.S. government, possibly simply to shield himself. He later offered to spy for the CIA, from Panama, on Communists in Cuba. Süddeutsche Zeitung reports that Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service declined to hand over documents relating to Erhard Mossack due to possible security risks.

At the bottom of every tried-and-true Hollywood intrigue, you will find a Nazi- the epitome of all that is evil and wicked about Nationalism. But what about the bottom of this International Consortium of Investigative Journalists that appears to be an integral part of this Panama Papers business? Who do we find there? The ICIJ was launched as a project by the Center for Public Integrity. According to the CPI’s website, they were founded in 1989 by former ABC employee, Charles Lewis and are “one of the country’s oldest and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organizations. Our mission: To serve democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of public trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism.”

One can look further on the CPI website to find a long list their major sponsors who include: The Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the Foundation for National Progress, the Goldman-Sonnenfedlt Foundation, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, Fidelity Brokerage Services, the Jewish Community Federation and Endowment Fund, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Rockefeller Family Fund.

It appears at the bottom of this real-life intrigue, we find a whole bunch of Globalists who are just continuing their assault on anyone who stands for national sovereignty, self-determination, and cultural integrity, and disguising it as “grassroots journalism”. The Panama Papers “leak” is not “bombshell”; it is laughable hypocrisy at its best.

Featured Image Courtesy of Süddeutsche Zeitung