The Geopolitics of Energy & Terrorism Part 11

The Geopolitics of Energy & Terrorism

Part 11

Iakovos Alhadeff

Table of Contents


Inside Hitler’s Mind

The International Jew : A Summary of Anti-Semitism in the 20th Century

Barack Obama and the Black Panthers

The New York Times and the Mexican Industrialists


The following chapters are independent essays written between from September 2016 to January 2017, and they can be read in any order.

The wars for the global resources of oil and natural gas are the topic of most essays. To a large extent, the wars of the 20th[_ and 21st_][_ centuries were the result of energy rich countries competing to secure their exports, or the result of energy poor countries competing to secure their access to energy resources._]

Many episodes of the energy wars of the 20th[_ and 21st_][_ centuries are described in the following essays._]


January 2017[

_ _

Inside Hitler’s Mind

Geostrategically speaking, Hitler had very few options, and therefore it is very easy to see the world through his eyes. The first thing to note is that during the Interwar Period (1919-1938) oil was mainly produced in United States, Russia, the Persian Gulf, mainly Iraq, and South-Eastern Asia, mainly Indonesia. The oil of North Africa and Saudi Arabia had not been discovered yet.

Map Oil Production in the Interwar Period

During World War 1 the British and the French had managed to take control of the oil of the Persian Gulf, the Russians had the oil of the Caspian Sea under their control, and Germany had nothing. The Germans could only count on the smaller oilfields of Romania.

Map The International Order After WW1

The Italians were importing their oil through the British and the French, and they knew very well that in case of war the British and the French could immediately cut off their oil supplies.

What Hitler wanted was to destroy the world order that was established after WW1, in order for Germany to take control either the oil of the Persian Gulf, or the oil of the Caspian Sea, or both. To do that Hitler had only five choices. At the following map you can see four of them.

Map Inside Hitler’s Mind

The option for Hitler was to repeat the strategy of the German Empire during World War 1 i.e. to march to the Persian Gulf through Austria and Turkey (yellow line).

However if Hitler was to do that the Russians, the British and the French would do what they did during WW1. They would leave their differences aside for a while, and they would attack Germany.

Moreover, during the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 the British, the Russians and the French had used Greece and Serbia to form a geographic wall between Germany and the Ottoman Empire. In addition, Turkey was scared by her defeat in WW1, and she preferred to remain neutral.

For all the above reasons Hitler did not want, or could not, repeat the strategy of the German Empire during WW1, in order to reach the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea through Austria and Turkey.

The second option for Hitler was to form an alliance with Mussolini, in order to jointly attack the British and the French at Palestine and get hold of the oil of the Persian Gulf (purple line).

Map Inside Hitler’s Mind

This option was partially used by Hitler and Mussolini with the Arab Spring of Palestine of 1936-1939 (Arab Revolt 1936-1939). Mussolini was the main supporter of the Arab Spring of Palestine, and he was sending money and weapons to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Muslim Brotherhood, in order to cause an Arab Revolt against the British. But Hitler was also a close ally of the Muslim Brotherhood, and therefore it is a sure thing that he was behind the Arab Spring of Palestine too. See “The Alliance Between Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood”.


Many Jewish terrorists were also attacking the British, most of them supported by Stalin and Russia. It is said that Jewish terrorism against the British was also supported by Hitler and Mussolini, but Hitler and Mussolini were allies of the Muslim Brotherhood, and therefore Stalin had a lot more space to support Jewish terrorists against the British.

Remember that many of the Jews of Palestine were Russian Jews who had fled Russia to escape from the Tsar. The Jews were allies of the Ottomans, and Tsarist Russia was very anti-Semitic. Palestine was an Ottoman colony at the time, and many Jews were leaving Russia for Palestine, were they were welcome by the Ottomans. When the Russian Communists came to power they were recturing some of these Jews of Palestine in order to carry out terrorist attacks against the British. However during the British mandate of Palestine most of the Jews of Palestine were British allies i.e. the Haganah.

Therefore Hitler did use this second option, even if only partially, and he attacked the British in Palestine with Mussolini. What is interesting is that Mussolini had almost become an ally of Britain and France against the Nazis in 1935 with the Stresa Front agreement. With the agreement of Stresa Front the British and the French agreed to give Mussolini some space in Africa, in order to convince him not to become a Nazi ally.

However things went wrong because Mussolini wanted Italy to have direct military control over the agreed regions in Africa, while the British and the French were willing to offer Italy diplomatic and economic control.

Map The Mussolini Ambitions


During WW1 the British and the French had taken control of East Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, and Mussolini thought that it was only fair that they allowed Italy to control Libya and Ethiopia, in order to reach the Indian Ocean through Africa. As I said the oil of North Africa had not been discovered yet, and Egypt was in Britain’s sphere of influence.

But if Mussolini controlled the Horn of Africa with his army, the British and French spheres of influence in the Persian Gulf would be constantly under threat, because Mussolini could attack them from Ethiopia, the Russians could attack them from the Caucasus and Iran, and Germany could attack them through Turkey. Moreover Mussolini could attack the British and French ships at the Straits of Bab el Mandeb at the Red Sea, and he could cut off their oil supplies from the Gulf. Remember that the oil pipelines of the Middle East were constructed after the end of WW2. See Foreign Affairs “Pipelines in the Sand”.

Therefore the British and the French were willing to grant Italy with the political and economic control of the Horn of Africa, but not with militarily control. That was not enough for Mussolini, who finally decided to enter the war on the side of Germany and Russia against Britain and France.

Map The Italian Corridor of Mussolini (Green Line)

Hitler’s third option was to form an alliance with the British against the French and the Russians. The Russians were fighting the British in India and the French were fighting the British in Africa, and therefore the Germans could form an alliance with the British, in order to take the disputed borderlands at their borders with France, and in order to take the oil of the Caspian Sea from Russia. And in return they would leave the Persian Gulf to the British (pink line).

Χάρτης Οι Επιλογές του Χίτλερ

That was the so called Lebensraum i.e. the “living space” of Germany, which you can see at the following map.

Map Lebensraum


But the British were not interested in helping the Nazis promote the Lebensraum i.e. to take the oil of the Caspian Sea, because Hitler was not reliable, and they were sure that once he had taken control of the Caspian oil he would march to the Persian Gulf. The British were proposing Hitler and alliance with Germany accepting the international order that was created with WW1, which meant that Germany would import oil from Britain and Russia, but would not stretch her muscle to the Caspian Sea. But the British proposal did not satisfy Hitler.

The fourth option for Hitler was to form an alliance with Stalin against the French and the British. The Germans would attack the British at the Persian Gulf from the West, and the Russians would attack the British from the north at the Persian Gulf and India.

Map Inside Hitler’s Mind

This one was the option that was finally promoted by Hitler, but in a version proposed by Stalin. The Russian Communists agreed to supply the Nazis with oil, iron and wheat, in order to help them beat the British and the French, but they did not want to exhaust their army in a war against the British, because they knew that once Hitler had got hold of the the Persian Gulf he could march to the Caspian Sea too.

Therefore they agreed to help Hitler beat the British and the French, while they would keep their army fresh, in order to defend their oil supplies if Hitler decided to attack them after the British and the French were finished, and in order to attack the British in India if they lost the war against the Nazis.

This plan was a good one for Stalin. The Germans, the French and the British would exhaust themselves in a war, and that would increase the relative strength of Russia. And that was what actually happened up to a point. But in the end the Nazi-Communist alliance was broken by Hitler, because the oil that was sent to him by the Russian Communists was not enough for his thirsty army. And Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 to take control of the oil of Baku.

These were the 4 out of the 5 options that Hitler had at his disposal. The 5th option for Hitler was to follow the British advise and respect the post WW1 international order. But that meant Hitler would not go for neither the Persian Gulf nor the Caspian Sea, and it was an option not interesting for Hitler. Therefore Hitler decided to form an alliance with the Russian Communists, and go for the oil of the Persian Gulf instead.

Map the Nazi-Communist Alliance

[* *]


I read various things and I normally do not mention my references. But sometimes, when something really helps my thinking, I have to mention some references, as I have done with Murray Rothbard in some of my economic essays.

Therefore I have to mention Henry Kissinger’s Diplomacy. Three of the chapters of his book really helped me understand the geopolitics of World War 2 i.e. “The End of Illusion – Hitler and the End of Versailles”, “Stalin’s Bazaar”, and “The Nazi Soviet Pact”.

Very simple writing, very clever writing, very informative writing.

Image Henry Kissinger’s Diplomacy


In March 1938 the first oilfield of Saudi Arabia was discovered.

“History of the oil industry in Saudi Arabia”

Saudi Arabian oil was first discovered by the Americans in commercial quantities at Dammam oil well No. 7 in 1938 in what is now modern day Dhahran.


Libya’s importance was enhanced in the 50s, when there were signs that Libya had oil, and in 1959 oil was discovered.


1-5th Paragraphs

When the Cold War began, Libya held little importance for either superpower. Yes, it was the home to Wheelus Air Force base, one of the major American bomber bases in the Eastern Hemisphere, but that’s about it. Leading exports were esparto, a type of grass used to make paper for currency bills, and scrap metal scavenged from the rusting tanks and trucks and weaponry that had been left behind by the Allies and the Axis powers.

The country gained some recognition when independence was declared on December 24, 1951. The Soviet Union had been stymied in its efforts to establish a Mandate over the country following the end of World War II. Now, Libya was the first country to achieve independence through the United Nations. It was also one of the first former European possessions in Africa to gain independence.

Proclaimed a constitutional and hereditary monarchy, the new United Kingdom of Libya was made up of three arbitrarily joined provinces: Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and Fezzan. The kingdom formed a federal government with three capital cities.: Tripoli, Benghazi, and Al Bayda. Idris as-Senussi, the Emir of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica and the leader of the Senussi Muslim Sufi order, was declared king.

Two years after independence, on March 28, 1953, Libya joined the Arab League.

In the mid 1950s, Libya gained further significance with the growing suspicion that the country might produce oil.

8^th ^Paragraph

The first round of negotiations in 1957 saw 17 companies bid for a total of 84 concessions. Early exploration results were disappointing, but this changed in 1959 when Standard Oil of New Jersey made a huge strike about 100 miles south of the Mediterranean coast. The US State Department summed it up: “Libya has hit the jack-pot.”

13-18th Paragraphs

While the Libyan government at that time was friendly — or at least neutral — toward the United States, the Libyan business environment was hostile, permeated with corruption.

Soon the political environment would be hostile as well. On April 25, 1963, the federal system of government was abolished and the name of the country was changed to the Kingdom of Libya.  More far reaching changes were soon to come.

The monarchy ended on September 1, 1969 when a group of military officers  staged a coup d’état against King Idris while he was in Turkey for medical treatment.  The coup was led by a 28 year old army officer named Mu’ammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhaffi. King Idris was exiled to Egypt.

The new regime, headed by the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), abolished the monarchy and proclaimed the new Libyan Arab Republic. The new RCC’s motto became “freedom, socialism, and unity.” It pledged to remedy “backwardness”, take an active role in the Palestinian Arab cause, promote Arab unity, and encourage domestic policies based on social justice, non-exploitation, and an equitable distribution of wealth.

The new government soon negotiated with the Americans to evacuate the Wheelus Air Base from Libya. The agreement had just two more years to run. In December 1969, the US agreed to vacate the facility by June 1970.


“Oil – Oil and world power”

The United States dominated world oil production in the first half of the twentieth century. U.S. fields accounted for slightly more than 70 percent of world oil production in 1925, around 63 percent in 1941, and over 50 percent in 1950. The U.S. oil industry operated in a unique regulatory environment that included a permissive legal regime, generous tax treatment, and a cooperative system of national production control centered on the state of Texas, which accounted for almost half of total U.S. production. During the Great Depression, the federal government, several state governments, and the oil companies worked out a control system that placed a ceiling on total output and allocated production so that marginal producers could survive in the face of considerable excess capacity. Although Texas authorities refused to require producers to pool their extractive activities in each oil field, thereby allowing wasteful extractive processes to continue, the system allowed high-cost marginal wells to continue to produce, thus preserving lower-cost fields for future use. Higher prices also somewhat reduced consumption. With the Texas Railroad Commission as a balance wheel, the system remained in place until the early 1970s, when domestic production alone could no longer fill national demand.

In addition to being blessed with a thriving and productive domestic oil industry, five of the seven great oil corporations (the so-called Seven Sisters) that dominated the international oil industry from the 1920s to the 1970s were American companies. U.S. oil companies, along with British firms, dominated the oil industries of the two main producing countries in Latin America, Mexico and Venezuela, and had smaller holdings throughout the region. During the 1920s and early 1930s, the United States successfully supported efforts by U.S. oil companies to gain oil concessions in the Middle East. U.S. companies were also involved in regionally significant oil fields in the Netherlands East Indies. By the eve of World War II, U.S. companies accounted for nearly 40 percent of oil production outside the United States and the Soviet Union.

More importantly, the United States possessed the means to ensure the stability of the producing regions and gain access to their oil. The United States Navy had emerged from World War I second to none, thus providing the United States with the capability of securing access to overseas oil-producing areas. The United States was already firmly entrenched in the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico–Caribbean region before World War I for security reasons that predated oil’s emergence as a strategic commodity. World War II and the Cold War reinforced traditional U.S. determination to maintain an economic and strategic sphere of influence in Latin America. Securing the Persian Gulf, which emerged as the center of the world oil industry following World War II, was more difficult for several reasons, including the region’s distance from the United States, the involvement of rival great powers, and the dynamics of regional politics. Great Britain had emerged as the leading power in the Middle East following World War I. Following World War II, the United States gradually assumed Britain’s role as the main guarantor of Western interests in the Middle East.

Oil became an important element in military power in the decade before World War I when the navies of the great powers, led by Great Britain and the United States, began to switch from coal to oil as their source of power. In addition, the major military innovations of World War I—the submarine, the airplane, the tank, and motorized transport—were all oil-powered. Although the surface fleets of the great powers played a relatively minor part in the fighting, German submarines wreaked havoc on British and French shipping and helped bring the United States into the war. In addition, oil carved out a role in the manufacture of munitions when the British, using a process developed by Royal Dutch/Shell, began extracting toluol, an essential ingredient in the explosive TNT, from oil. Access to oil became more important toward the end of the war with the transition from static trench warfare, with its limited demand for oil-powered machinery, to a more fluid operational environment in which tanks, motorized transport, and aircraft played a larger role.

Britain and France were able to draw on over-seas sources of supply from Iran, Mexico, and the United States, while the Germans were limited to oil from Romania. By the last year of the war, the United States was supplying more than 80 percent of Allied oil requirements, and the American navy was playing a key role in supplying and protecting tanker transport of oil to Europe. Although Lord Curzon’s boast that the Allied cause had floated to victory on a wave of oil was an overstatement, severe shortages of oil in 1917 and 1918 threatened to immobilize the Royal Navy and the French army. In both cases, urgent requests to the United States for help led to the provision of the needed supplies. In contrast, without such external assistance, oil shortages hindered German military operations at critical points.

In addition to being a tremendous military asset, access to ample supplies of oil provided the United States with important advantages in the industrial transformation of the first half of the twentieth century. By the 1890s, the United States had overtaken Great Britain as the leading industrial power in the world, and by the 1920s, the U.S. economy was larger than the combined economies of the next six great powers (Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Soviet Union, and Japan).

Cheap and plentiful supplies of oil were a prerequisite for the automobile industry, which played a central role in the U.S. economy from the 1920s to the 1960s. Oil became the fuel of choice in land and sea transport as well as the only fuel for air transport, and challenged coal as the main source of energy for industry. Oil also played an important, if somewhat less crucial, role in heating and electricity generation, but oil-powered machinery became crucial to modern agriculture, and oil became an important feedstock for fertilizers and pesticides. Indeed, with the development of the petrochemical industry, oil reached into almost every area of modern life. Already almost one-fifth of U.S. energy consumption by 1925, oil accounted for around one-third of U.S. energy use by World War II. Outside the United States, in contrast, oil was a secondary fuel reserved mainly for transportation and military uses and accounted for less than 10 percent of energy consumption in western Europe and Japan before World War II.

The Soviet Union was the only other great power that possessed significant quantities of oil within its borders. The Russian empire had been the world’s leading oil producer in 1900, accounting for more than half of world production. Soon thereafter a combination of geological and political problems caused output to plummet. Soviet oil production recovered rapidly in the 1920s, and by 1939 the Soviet Union was the second-largest oil producer in the world, far behind the United States and slightly ahead of Venezuela. Although the Soviets reentered exports markets briefly in the late 1920s, by the end of the 1930s almost all Soviet oil production was being devoted to internal uses.

The other great powers (Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan) lacked indigenous oil reserves and were therefore dependent on foreign sources. Although British companies held concessions in Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia, maintaining access to this oil required stability in the oil-producing areas and control of the sea routes linking the oil-producing areas to Britain. British security policy called for the Mediterranean and the Middle East to be defended because they lay athwart land, sea, and air routes to India, the Far East, and the Pacific dominions. If the Mediterranean were closed, a prospect that seemed increasingly likely as Britain’s relative power declined in the 1930s, access to Middle East oil would be very difficult, assuming that the oil fields and other facilities could be defended. Production in the Far East was not great, and access to its oil would be even more difficult to defend in wartime. Wartime access to Western Hemisphere oil would be dependent on the acquiescence and probably the assistance of the United States, to which Britain had conceded regional supremacy shortly after 1900 and whose help would be needed to transport the oil safely across the Atlantic. This dependence on the United States for vital oil supplies was a critical weakness in Great Britain’s power position.

During the 1930s, the British government studied the possibility of reducing its reliance on imported oil by using Britain’s ample coal supplies as a source of synthetic oil. It rejected this alternative on security grounds, concluding that, given the British position in the major oil producing areas and the strength of the Royal Navy, reliance on imported oil would be less vulnerable to interdiction than large synthetic oil plants that would be conspicuous targets for air attack.

France’s stake in foreign oil was largely limited to a share in Iraqi oil production and a few holdings in Romania. Access to Iraq, which by 1939 supplied almost half of France’s oil imports, was dependent on British assistance to keep the Mediterranean open and the Middle East secure. Romania was able to fill only a small portion of French oil requirements, and access to Romanian oil would be unreliable in the event of a conflict with Germany. Access to Western Hemisphere oil, the other source of French imports, was dependent on U.S. goodwill and assistance. The French also explored extracting oil from coal and using alcohol as a motor fuel, but neither alternative provided sufficient supplies to relieve France’s dependence on imported oil. France was thus doubly dependent, needing British and U.S. cooperation to ensure access to oil.

German and Japanese oil companies had been shut out of the major foreign oil-producing areas, leaving both nations dependent on foreign companies for necessary supplies and thus vulnerable to economic and political pressure. Moreover, their access to oil in the Middle East and the Western Hemisphere was threatened by British and U.S. control of the oil-producing areas and Anglo-American command of the sea routes to these regions.

Convinced that oil was essential to fuel his ambitions, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler moved to promote the development of a synthetic fuel industry in Germany shortly after taking power in 1933. By the outbreak of World War II, coal-derived synfuels accounted for nearly half of Germany’s peacetime oil needs. The process of extracting oil from coal was complicated and expensive, and the huge installations required massive amounts of steel and were very vulnerable to air attack. Therefore, obtaining access to oil that did not depend on sea routes subject to interdiction by enemies remained an important part of Nazi expansionist strategy.

Germany received large quantities of oil from the Soviet Union under the terms of the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact, and in November 1940 gained assured access to Romanian oil when Romania was forced to adhere to the Tripartite Pact. These supplies were inadequate for Germany’s needs, leading Hitler to look to the conquest of the rich oil fields of the Caucasus as a way to gain oil for Germany’s highly mechanized military machine. Thus, the desire to gain assured access to oil was an important factor in Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941.

Obtaining access to oil was also a key factor behind Japan’s decision to attack the United States. By the end of the 1930s, Japan was dependent on the United States for 80 percent of its oil needs. Most of the rest came from the Netherlands East Indies, where Shell and the Standard-Vacuum Oil Company, a jointly owned subsidiary of Standard Oil (New Jersey) and Socony-Vacuum, controlled production. The Netherlands East Indies possessed the largest reserves in East Asia, and control over its oil would go a long way toward meeting Japan’s oil needs. On the other hand, seizing the Netherlands East Indies would lead to conflict with Great Britain and the United States. Nevertheless, the Japanese chose this course after the United States, Britain, and the Netherlands imposed an oil embargo on Japan in the late summer of 1941 in response to Japan’s decision to take control of all Indochina.

World War II marked the apogee of oil’s direct military importance, and the role of oilpowered weapons systems demonstrated that oil had become the lifeblood of the modern military machine. All the key weapons systems of World War II were oil-powered: surface warships (including aircraft carriers), submarines, airplanes (including long-range bombers), tanks, and a large portion of sea and land transport. Oil continued to play an important role in the manufacture of munitions, and the development of petroleum-based synthetic rubber helped relieve Allied dependence on Southeast Asian natural rubber supplies, most of which were in the hands of the Japanese for much of the war.

The United States entered World War II with a surplus production capacity of over one million barrels per day, almost one-third of U.S. production in 1941. This margin enabled the United States, almost single-handedly, to fuel not only its own war effort but that of its Allies, once the logistics of transporting the oil safely across the Atlantic had been mastered. In addition, U.S. leadership in oil-refining technology provided the U.S. military with such advantages as 100-octane aviation gasoline and specialty lubricants needed for high performance aircraft engines.

The Soviet Union also benefited from having indigenous oil supplies. The Soviets were able to retain control of the vital Caucasian oil fields, and rushed new fields in the Volga-Urals region, safely removed from the fighting, into production. These successes helped Soviet forces attain the mobility necessary to repel the German invaders and go on the offensive.

German and Japanese failure to gain secure access to sufficient oil supplies was an important factor in their defeat. German synthetic fuel production proved barely adequate for wartime requirements, and failure to gain control of the rich oil fields in the Caucasus, coupled with setbacks in the Middle East and North Africa, left the German military vulnerable to oil shortages throughout the war. Indeed, Germany was able to hang on as long as it did only because the absence of a second front until the summer of 1944 kept oil requirements at manageable levels. In the late summer of 1944, the Allied bombing campaign began belatedly targeting synthetic fuel plants. By the end of the war, the German war machine was running on empty.

The Japanese gained control of the Netherlands East Indies in 1942, but many of the oil facilities had been sabotaged and took time to restore to full production. More importantly, transporting oil from the East Indies to Japan proved increasingly difficult owing to the remarkable success of U.S. submarines in interdicting Japanese shipping. By late 1944, Japan faced serious oil shortages, with crippling military consequences.

With the exception of the jet engine, the major military innovations of World War II—radar, ballistic missiles, and the atomic bomb—were not oil-powered. Nevertheless, oil remained central to the mobility of land, sea, and air forces. Despite the development of nuclear-powered warships (mainly aircraft carriers and submarines), most of the world’s warships remained oil-powered, as did aircraft, armor, and transport. In addition, each new generation of weapons required more oil than its predecessors. Thus, while the advent of the atomic age meant that access to oil would not have been a key factor in a full-scale war between the United States and the Soviet Union, which presumably would have been fought primarily with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, such conflicts as the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf were fought with conventional, largely oil-powered weapons, thus demonstrating the continued centrality of oil-powered forces, and hence oil, to military power.

Oil’s economic importance increased after World War II as the United States intensified its embrace of patterns of socioeconomic organization premised on high levels of oil use, and western Europe and Japan made the transition from coal to oil as their main source of energy. U.S. and world oil consumption skyrocketed in the 1950s and 1960s. Between 1950 and 1972, total world energy consumption increased 179 percent, much faster than population growth, resulting in a doubling of per capita energy consumption. Oil accounted for much of this increase, rising from 29 percent of world energy consumption in 1950 to 46 percent in 1972. By 1973, oil accounted for 47 percent of U.S. energy consumption. Western Europe and Japan were even more dependent on oil for meeting their energy needs; by 1973 oil accounted for 64 percent of west European energy consumption and 80 percent of Japanese energy consumption.

Control of oil played a vital role in establishing and maintaining U.S. preeminence in the postwar international system. Adding to its domestic power base, the United States consolidated its control of world oil in the decade following World War II. By the mid-1950s, U.S. oil companies were firmly entrenched in the great oil-producing areas outside the Soviet Union. Equally, if not more important, the United States, as the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere, controlled access to the region’s oil, and the United States alone had the economic and military power to secure Western access to Middle East oil.

The Soviet Union also possessed a powerful domestic oil industry, but despite geographical proximity, extensive efforts, and widespread anti-Western sentiment in Iran and the Arab world, the Soviets failed to achieve a secure foothold in the Persian Gulf and had little impact on the region’s oil industry. The Soviets had even less influence over the Western Hemisphere’s oil producers. Indeed, the U.S.-led economic boycott of Cuba forced the Soviets to supply the one foothold they possessed in the Western Hemisphere with oil at subsidized prices.

The strong position of the United States in world oil provided multiple advantages. In addition to being central to military power and economic prosperity, control of oil gave the United States leverage over its allies and its former and prospective enemies. U.S. policymakers saw economic growth as essential to preventing the recurrence of the divisive ideological and social conflicts of the interwar years. Soviet expansion into eastern and central Europe as a result of World War II left the Soviet Union in control of almost all of Europe’s known indigenous oil reserves as well as important sources of coal in Poland and the Soviet zone of Germany. Making matters worse, postwar western Europe faced a coal shortage of alarming proportions owing to wartime overproduction and destruction and postwar food, transportation, and other problems.

To fuel economic recovery and to prevent western Europe from becoming dependent on the Soviets for energy, the United States sought to ensure that this critical area received the oil it needed. Economic growth, in turn, was crucial to mitigating the divisive class conflicts that had divided European and Japanese society in the first half of the century. Economic growth and prosperity undercut the appeal of leftist parties, financed the welfare state, perpetuated the ascendancy of moderate elites, and sustained the cohesion of the Western alliance. By controlling access to essential oil supplies, the United States was able to reconcile its aim of German and Japanese economic recovery and integration into a Western alliance with that of ensuring against the recurrence of German and Japanese aggression.

Economic growth in western Europe and Japan was central to the containment of Soviet power and influence during the Cold War because it helped prevent these areas from falling to communism through internal processes. Finally, for many years after World War II the Soviets lacked sufficient oil to fight a major war. Hit hard by wartime damage, disruption, transportation problems, equipment shortages, and overuse, Soviet oil production dropped after the war, and the Soviet Union was a net importer of oil (mostly from Romania) until 1954. Exclusion of the Soviets from the Middle East retained oil for Western recovery, and kept the Soviets short of oil. In addition, U.S. and British strategic planners wanted to keep the Soviets out of the Middle East because the region contained the most defensible locations for launching a strategic air offensive against the Soviet Union in the event of a global war. Throughout the Cold War, ensuring Western access to Middle East oil was a basic objective of U.S. foreign policy.


The International Jew : A Summary of[
**]Anti-Semitism in the 20th Century

Before World War 1, the German Empire created the Russian Communist Party, in order to attack the Russian army. And indeed, during WW1, the Russian Communists, with the support of the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, defeated the Russian army.

The Russian Communists withdrew Russia from the War, and with the Treaty of Brest Litovsk in 1918 they distributed ¼ of the lands of the Russian Empire to the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire.

As you can see at the following map, the French and the British had a crucial geographical disadvantage when they were trying to support the Russian army from the Persian Gulf and India, because at the Eastern Front the Russian army was facing 3 empires, which had the Russian Communists as their spearhead.

Map The Russian (October) Revolution 1917

When Germany was defeated in 1918, Lenin established in Germany the German Communist Party (1918), and in the United States he established the American Communist Party (1919).

Image German Communist Party


Image American Communist Party


The Jews were allies of the Ottomans, who were protecting the Jews from the Christian populations. In Tsarist Russia there was extreme anti-Semitism, and in order to escape the Tsarist police the Jews were leaving Russia for the capitalist Germany. These Jews were later killed by Hitler during the Holocaust.

Many Jews of the Russian Empire had also immigrated to the United States.

As a result, Lenin and later Stalin, even though they were both anti-Semites, they made great use of the Communist Jews in their foreign policy, in order to attack Germany, Great Britain and the United States of America. To many non-religious Jews the Communist ideology was very attractive, because it was attacking God, and that meant that Jews would not be treated as second class citizens any more. Of course that was not true for religious Jews who did not like the Communists at all.

Today the Nazi propaganda says that the Russian Communists were attacking religion because Communism was a Jewish conspiracy. The truth is that the Russian Communists were attacking God and religion because they wanted to attack Pope’s influence in Eastern Europe (Poland, Baltic Countries), and the influence of the Islamic Caliphate (Ottoman Empire) at Central Asia and the Caspian Sea. There are 2.2 billion Christians and 1.6 billion Muslims, while there are only 18 million Jews.

The Russian Communists also attackad the Russian Orthodox Church, because they did not want Orthodox leaders to influence the Russian people. The Russian secret services closed most of the Orthodox churches in Russia, and in the few they left they planted agents of the Russian secret services. Thus they transformed the Russian Orthodox Church to a department of the Communist Party. In the next decades the Russians Communists, together with Fidel Castro, promoted the Theology of Liberation in Latin America. See Ion Pacepa’s great book “Disinformation”.

Lenin’s and Stalin’s agents in the United States were not only Jews, but American Jews were very strong in the arts and Hollywood, and they were very important for the propaganda that was promoted by Stalin against the United States through the American Communist Party.

Henry Ford was the greatest American industrialist at the time, and obviously he saw the American Communists who were supported by Russia as his rival. As a result he financed the “International Jew”, a four volume publication, which was the American equivalent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion had been published in Russia by the Tsarist policy around 1900, and it had been supposedly written by Jews, and it was the grand strategy of the Jews in order to achieve world dominance. See Wikipedia “International Jew”.

Unfortunately for Henry Ford the United States was not Russia. The United States was a state of law and justice. Therefore some Jewish organizations went to the court, and Henry Ford lost the case, because “The International Jew” was anti-Semitic, and it was a work of slander. Henry Ford had to apologize, and he even had to close down his newspaper that distributed the International Jew.

Obviously The International Jew did not disappear, and many Christian or nationalist organizations kept secretly distributing it to their members. Even today the International Jew is published together with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Below you can see an Egyptian edition of the International Jew (2001).

Image The International Jew (2001)


However in Europe the Protocols are a lot more famous than the International Jew, because it is the version distributed by the KGB during the Cold War. About KGB and the Protocols see Ion Pacepa “Disinformation”.

The Jews were not really the target of the KGB. The real target of the KGB was the United States. Yuri Andropov, when he became KGB leader in 1967, distributed the Protocols in the Muslim world, in order to mobilize the Arabs against Israel. Israel was the most reliable ally of the United States in the Middle East. Only in Israel the American soldiers can walk with their uniforms without having to worry that some fanatics will butcher them.

Yuri Andropov also distributed the Protocols in Europe, in order to present the United States as a country controlled by a world Jewish conspiracy, in order to turn the European people against the United States. The United States was the leader of NATO.

But let me go back to Henry Ford. Since the Russian Communists were using the Communist Jews of both Germany and the United States as their agents, through the German and American Communist parties, many Americans and many Germans shared Communists as a common enemy.

And since many Jews were Communists, these American and Germans saw Jews as a common enemy too. Remember that many Jews in Germany and United States were Russian Jews, who had fled the Russian Empire to escape from the Russian Tsar. Some of them became members of the American and German Communist parties and they were Russian spies.

According to Hitler Henry Ford was a great American, and one of the few Americans who was not controlled by the world Jewish conspiracy.

Note also that the Russians were using the Communist Jews of Palestine against Great Britain. During WW1 the British and the French had won the Middle East, and they had agreed to construct a British oil pipeline, through Iraq and Palestine (Israel+Jordan), and a French pipeline (Iraq-Syria-Lebanon). See Foreign Affairs “Pipelines in the Sand”.

The British and the French also wanted to construct railways that would connect their colonies in Asia to the Mediterranean Sea through the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Syria, as an alternative to the Suez Canal (India for Great Britain and Indochina for France).

Map UK and French Colonies in Asia

The Russians were using the Communist Jews of Palestine to carry out terrorist attacks against Great Britain, in order to block these pipelines and railways.

Mussolini and Hitler were using the Arabs of Palestine to carry out terrorist attacks against the British too. Therefore the British were attacked by both Jewish and Muslim terrorists in Palestine, and they only managed to construct the oil pipelines after the end of WW2.

In 1936 the Arab Spring of Palestine broke out (Arab Revolt of 1946-1939). That was a revolt very well organized by Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin against the British Empire. As you can see at the following map, with their victory during WW1, the British and the French had managed to ensure their oil supplies by gaining the colonies of the Ottoman Empires. The Russians had the oil of the Caspian Sea, while the Germans had nothing. Mussolini knew very well that the British and the French could cut off his oil supplies if he decided to ally with Hitler.

Map The Arab Spring of Palestine 1936-1939


The story of the International Jew in the 20th Century was promoted by the Tsarist police around 1900, because the Jews were allies of the Ottomans, and because the Germans, the Austrians and the Ottomans were promoting Communism in Russia to attack the Russian army, and many Jews participated in the Communist Party of Russia.

Later on, on the story of the International Jew was promoted by the Nazis, because Lenin and later Stalin, were using the German Communist Party to take control of Germany. And once again there were Jews in the German Communist Party.

Later, the story of the International Jew was promoted by the KGB, in order to mobilize the Arabs against Israel, which was the most reliable ally of the US, and in order to make European people suspicious of the US, which was supposedly controlled by a world Jewish conspiracy.

Later, the story of the International Jew was promoted by Shiite Iran, a Russian ally. Shiites (Shia) are only 10% of the Muslim population, and the Iranians were using the story of the International Jew to attack the strong Sunni countries of the Middle East, and in order to increase its influence in the Sunni world.

Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia were allies of United States and not Russia’s. Turkey was a strong ally of Israel, Egypt became an American ally and recognized Israel in 1979, and Saudi Arabia and Israel had the US as a common ally and they were facing Iran as a common enemy.

Now the story of the International Jew is promoted by Turkey, due to the Russo-Israeli alliance against Turkey and Qatar. Erdogan ordered the sequel of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was titled “The Mastermind”.

“Pipelines in the Sand”


“The International Jew”

1st, 2nd, 3rd Paragraphs

The International Jew is a four volume set of booklets or pamphlets published and distributed in the early 1920s by Henry Ford, an American industrialist and automobile manufacturer.

In Spring 1920, Ford made his personal newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, chronicle what he considered the “Jewish menace”. Every week for 91 issues, the paper exposed some sort of Jewish-inspired evil major story in a headline. The most popular and aggressive stories were then chosen to be reprinted into four volumes called The International Jew.1

It is to be distinguished from The International Jew: The World’s Problem which was the headline in The Dearborn Independent and is the name of a collection of articles serialized in The Dearborn Independent.

8-11 Paragraphs

1927 Libel Suit

A libel lawsuit, brought by San Francisco lawyer and Jewish farm cooperative organizer Aaron Sapiro in response to antisemitic remarks, led Ford to close the Independent in December 1927. News reports at the time quoted him as being shocked by the content and having been unaware of its nature. During the trial, the editor of Ford’s “Own Page”, William John Cameron, testified that Ford had nothing to do with the editorials even though they were under his byline. Cameron testified at the libel trial that he never discussed the content of the pages nor sent them to Ford for his approval.3 Investigative journalist Max Wallace doubted the veracity of this claim and wrote that James M. Miller, a former Dearborn Independent employee, swore under oath that Ford had told him he intended to expose Sapiro.4 According to Michael Barkun, “That Cameron would have continued to publish such controversial material without Ford’s explicit instructions seemed unthinkable to those who knew both men. Mrs. Stanley Ruddiman, a Ford family intimate, remarked that “I don’t think Mr. Cameron ever wrote anything for publication without Mr. Ford’s approval”.

Influence on Nazi Anti-Semitism

Ford’s International Jew was translated into German in 1922 and was cited as an influence by Baldur von Schirach, one of the Nazis leaders, who stated “I read it and became anti-Semitic. In those days this book made such a deep impression on my friends and myself because we saw in Henry Ford the representative of success, also the exponent of a progressive social policy. In the poverty-stricken and wretched Germany of the time, youth looked toward America, and apart from the great benefactor, Herbert Hoover, it was Henry Ford who to us represented America.”6 Ford is the only American mentioned in Hitler’s Mein Kampf, but is only mentioned once in one sentence, where Hitler writes “Every year makes them [American Jews] more and more the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions; only a single great man, Ford, to their fury still maintains full independence.” The second edition of the book removed reference to Ford.

The Patriotic Publishing Co

In 1934, The Patriotic Publishing Co., an unincorporated entity that operated out of a post office box8[not in citation given] “Issued” and “Compiled and edited” The Protocols as an expanded 300-page tome. The expansion from less than 100 pages to 300 pages was made possible by copying substantial sections from The Dearborn Independent. Most of the later imprints of the Protocols are derived from this 1934 edition.

George F. Green and the Christian Nationalist Crusade

In June 1949 there appeared a 174-page, one-volume abridgment of the text, titled The International Jew, subtitled “The World’s Foremost Problem”, and edited by George F. Green10 (who is not to be confused with the novelist and short-story writer of the same name). It was published by Green, editor of The Independent Nationalist [11]

The book was also sold in the United States, where it was distributed by the Christian Nationalist Crusade


“Communist Party of the USA

The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) was a Moscow-controlled Marxist-Leninist party in the United States. It nominated a candidate for president from 1924 through 1984, sometimes with funding from the atheistic Communist Soviet Union. With the collapse of the Soviet Union it became a hollow shell and has urged voters to support the Democrat Party.1

The Soviet Union used the CPUSA to recruit spies after the U.S. recognized the USSR in 1933.

The CPUSA was under heavy attack by the U.S. government after 1947 and the start of the Cold War. After gaining control of many Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) locals and unions it was expelled from the CIO in 1948. After losing its main base it continued to operate some small unions, such as the fur workers. It supported and gained control of the presidential campaign of Henry A. Wallace in 1948. After 1948 it was a hunted target and played only a small role.

Membership in the CPUSA was a high maintenance commitment—the Party demanded full control of people’s ideas, friendships, jobs and activities. There were repeated in-depth investigations, humiliating interrogations, forced confessions, and purges. Many sympathizers (or “fellow travelers”) supported Communist goals but refused to become members. Of those who did join turnover in membership was very high, with most people staying less than a year before they quit in disgust with the intellectual and social regimentation of the party and its structure as a top-down dictatorship that took orders from Moscow. The CPUSA did not execute anyone, but many—probably most—of the American Communists who traveled to Russia were killed there.2


Barack Obama and the Black Panthers

As soon as Donald Trump was elected, Cuba announced military drills. See Time Magazine “Military Drills Have Been Announced in Cuba After Donald Trump’s Election Victory”, November 2016.

Cuba is a very old enemy of the United States. Fidel Castro is financed by the oil of Venezuela and by the cocaine of the communist narco-terrorists of FARC in Colombia. In the old days, in order to send his cocaine to Fidel Castro, Pablo Escobar was using as his aid the Communist author, and Nobel Prize winner, Gabriel Garcia Marques (One Hundred Years of Solitude).

Gabriel Garcia Marques was not simply an Escobar’s postman, he was also a snitch of Fidel Castro. See Frontpage Mag “Gabriel Garcia Marquez: Castro’s propagandist & snitch”.

Image Fidel Escobar

See also Business Insider “Pablo Escobar’s top hit man claims literary icon Gabriel Garcia Marquez worked with El Patron”, October 2015.

Cuban soldiers were transporting the cocaine shipments to Florida, because Miami was, and it still is, one of the most important trafficking points of Escobar and Fidel Castro. See XPAT Nation “How Pablo Escobar Ran His Drug Empire While In Exile With The Help Of Fidel Castro”, September 2015.

Map Cuba-Florida

Map Gulf of Mexico

During the Vietnam War, together with the Soviets and the Chinese, Fidel Castro was financing the communist gangs of Black Panther, who were revolting against the American government, demanding a US withdrawal from the Vietnam War. They were also demanding that black Americans did not serve in the American army.

In the end the United States had to abandon their allies, and the Communists of Vietnam, who were supported by the Soviets and the Chinese, won the war. Fidel and the communist gangs of Black Panthers played a crucial role in defeating the United States.

Image Black Panthers

Today it is not the Communists of Black Panthers attacking American people, but it is instead its off-spring, the Communist terrorists of Black Lives Matter.


I guess that both the Black Panthers and the Black Lives Matters are not simply supported by Fidel, but they must have also been important parts of his drug network.

Barack Hussein Obama, a leftist black Muslim, or at least the son of Shiite Muslim from Kenya, whom the American people chose as their president, says that racism is on the DNA of American people, and he is travelling from country to country apologizing for the United States, like if everything that goes wrong on this world is the fault of the United States.

Barack Hussein Obama abolished the economic sanctions against Iran and Cuba, and also pushed for a legalization of the FARC Communist narcoterrorists in Columbia. Note that in the end the peace between the Colombian government and the Communist narcoterrorists of FARC was rejected by the Colombian people.

Barack Hussein Obama did that even though he new that Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Hezbollah and FARC, would now find it much easier to smuggle cocaine in the United States, in order to finance their terrorist organizations like the Black Lives Matter who are killing American policemen, and who are now trying to overturn the legally elected President Donald Trump.

The Communists who are trying to overturn Donald Trump are also financed by the Arabs of the Gulf i.e. Qatar, Saudi Arabia etc, who were hopping for the election of Hilary Clinton in order to push for the Qatar-Turkey Pipeline. Actually they preferred the leftist Jewish Bernie Sanders who has promised them, as the also did to the dictators of Latin America, to forbid fracking in the United States. That would also make the lobby of green energy very happy and would earn Bernie a few dollars. See Reuters “Billionaire green activist Steyer not ready to back Clinton, open to Sanders”, January 2016.

Many other billionaires have invested billions in the green energy sector too i.e. George Soros, Bill Gats, Marc Zuckerberg etc.

Donald Trump has pledged to make life easier for American coal and oil producers, and as soon as he was elected the shares of the coal producers sky rocketed, while the shares of green companies lost their value. See Washington Post “Trump victory batters solar and wind stocks, bolsters coal shares”, November 2016.

So the anti-Trump protests are financed by so many sources i.e. FARC, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the American lobby of green energy, and by Americans who have their companies in China, in the Persian Gulf, in Mexico etc.




“Military Drills Have Been Announced in Cuba After Donald Trump’s Election Victory”, November 2016


“Pablo Escobar’s top hit man claims literary icon Gabriel Garcia Marquez worked with El Patron”, October 2015

1, 2, 3

John Jairo Velásquez Vásquez, working as one of Pablo Escobar’s top hit men, killed at least 300 people and was implicated in the deaths of 3,000 more.

Velásquez, aka Popeye, was a key functionary in Escobar’s Medellin cartel. And, as he claimed in an interview earlier this month, his duties extended to meeting with Latin American luminaries and national leaders on behalf of the cartel.

Speaking with Puerto Rico’s Wapa TV, Popeye said that he hand-delivered letters from Escobar to Colombian literary icon Gabriel Garcia Marquez, who then passed the letters on to Fidel and Raul Castro.


“How Pablo Escobar Ran His Drug Empire While In Exile With The Help Of Fidel Castro”, September 2015

23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28

The world’ greatest businessmen never rest after gaining success. On the contrary, they refuse to rest on their laurels and work even harder. Pablo Escobar belonged to this breed. He was always scheming new ways of expanding his network. If one of his trading routes was eliminated, Pablo had two more routes as a backup.

While in Nicaragua, Pablo thought it convenient to approach Fidel Castro. Cuba was a strategic trading point, since it had severed its ties to the U.S. Also, Cuba was close to Miami, one of the cartel’s biggest markets. One of Pablo’s connections in Miami was a drug lord named Jorge Avendano “The Crocodile”. The Crocodile had partied along the flamboyant Ochoa brothers at their wild Miami orgies. The Ochoas had mingled with the crème de la crème of Miami and knew some influential Cuban-Americans. This is how, through a third party, they were able to reach Fidel Castro.

Pablo ordered The Crocodile to relay a business proposition to Fidel. Fidel, busy with his own work, delegated the job to his brother Raul. It was through the intervention of Raul, that Escobar made a deal with Fidel. The Crocodile traveled to Havana to seal the agreement.

The Drug cargo would sail in various ships from the Buenaventura port in Colombia. The ships would reach Mexico ports and the cargo (approx 26,455 pounds per shipment) would be transported to a Mexican airport. Mexican planes would fly to Cuba and unload the cargo in the island’s coasts. Fidel assigned two of his closest associates for the job: Cuban general Arnaldo Ochoa and colonel Tony La Guardia.

As part of the deal, Cuban soldiers would take the cocaine in small boats to Miami. The cargo would be delivered to one of Pablo’s drug lords, a man known as “Mugre” (The Dirt). Mugre hid the cocaine in the mansions of the Ochoas, in the luxurious neighborhoods of Kendall, Boca Raton and Cayo Hueso. Fidel Castro made around 3,000 dollars for every cocaine pound Cuba delivered. Jorge Avendano stayed in Cuba to make the payments.

Pablo Escobar said that it had been a pleasure to work with Castro. Due to Castro’s great work ethic, Escobar made lots of money. Fidel Castro and Escobar had never seen each other. But they regularly wrote letters which were delivered by “special emissaries”. The Colombian Nobel laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez was one of them. Garcia Marquez and Fidel Castro had a close friendship. In one occasion, Escobar sent Popeye to Mexico (where the writer lived) so that he could give Garcia Marquez a letter for Fidel Castro.


“Garciarcía Márquez: Castro Stooge”




“Iran invites families of black men shot by police to a Tehran anti-discrimination conference”, September 2015


“Obama defends Black Lives Matter protests at police memorial in Dallas”, July 2016


“BLM Leader Says Clintons Only Use Blacks For Photo-Ops”, August 2016


“Between Police And Black Lives Matter, Hillary Clinton Walking A Fine Line”, August 2016


“Police union attacks Hillary Clinton for inviting Black Lives Matter speakers to convention”, July 2016


“Black Lives Matter supporters march against Hillary Clinton: ‘Hard to trust”,July 2016


“Trump: Black Lives Matter has helped instigate police killings”, July 2016


“Beyoncé is a powerful voice for Black Lives Matter. Some people hate her for it”, July 2016


“Trump victory batters solar and wind stocks, bolsters coal shares”, November 2016


“Understanding The Clintons’ Popularity With Black Voters”, March 2016


“Billionaire green activist Steyer not ready to back Clinton, open to Sanders”, January 2016

1, 2, 3

Billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer said he is not ready to endorse Hillary Clinton, and he would be open to supporting her main rival, Bernie Sanders, if he becomes the Democratic nominee for president.

One of the biggest Democratic donors, Steyer could help Clinton boost her standing among environmentalist activists who are a key constituency within the Democratic Party. Clinton is locked in tight races with Sanders in Iowa and New Hampshire, which both have early nominating contests.

“Our real goal has been not to support any one candidate, but to emphasize and highlight the issue (of climate change) so that the candidates can lay out their solutions and so the American people can have a chance to make a decision,” Steyer said in a telephone interview on Tuesday.


“Tom Steyer : Keystone Pipeline”

Keystone Pipeline

After holding several conversations in the summer of 2012 with environmental writer Bill McKibben, Steyer decided to focus much of his attention on the Keystone Pipeline. That October, Steyer officially left Farallon. He was criticized by some Republicans for attacking the pipeline even though he himself held some investments in the fossil-fuel industry, including stock in Kinder Morgan, which had its own pipeline connecting the Canadian tar sands to a port on the Pacific, which could be seen as a rival to the Keystone pipeline. Steyer promised to fully unload his holdings there within a year.44 In September 2013, Steyer appeared in a series of commercials in opposition to the proposed pipeline.44

In a November 2015 interview, Steyer described the Obama administration’s decision to reject the Keystone pipeline as “fantastic.”74


“The FARC and Colombia’s Illegal Drug Trade”, November 2014


Another estimate released in 2012 by the Colombian Attorney General’s Office put the FARC’s annual income—including drugs and all other illicit activities—at $1.1 billion.46 General José Roberto León, who was then director of Colombia’s national police force, told Reuters in 2013 that the FARC controls about 60 percent of the nation’s drug trade and earns about $1 billion per year from the industry.


“Iran Trains Terrorists in Venezuela”, Μάιος 2011

3, 4, 5

Tehran is already preparing for this scenario with the help of Latin American countries such as Venezuela. Al-Seyassah has published reports about Iranian training camps on the border between Venezuela and Colombia, where Shiites from the Arab world are taught to make bombs, carry out assassinations, kidnap people and transport hostages to other locations. These training camps are run by Iranian Revolutionary Guards in cooperation with Hezbollah and Hamas.

The newspaper reports that the Shiite trainees fly to Caracas via Damascus, probably on the Venezuelan airline Conviasa, which covers the Caracas-Damascus-Tehran route. The weekly Conviasa’s flights to Tehran are a cause for concern in Washington, due to the lack of transparency about what or whom they might be transporting.. The Kuwaiti paper mentions as well the trainees’ presence in Colombia. The Iranian government allegedly enjoys in Latin America the support of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of the Colombian group, the FARC, which derives its primary source of income from drug trafficking. It is not a coincidence, therefore, that Al-Seyassah mentions that Iran finances its militias through narco-trafficking.

Iran’s support in Latin America should worry the US. The Iranian regime is expanding its ties and its influence in the US’s backyard, and helping groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas finding new safe havens for their terrorist activities. Recently, Uruguay also showed strong interest in strengthening relations with Teheran. The Uruguayan Foreign Minister even went so far as to hail Iran’s role in the promotion of human rights in the world.


“Cuba’s Support for Terrorism and the Venezuela-Iran Nexus”, May 2014

1 , 2

Iran, Cuba and Venezuela have developed a close and cooperative relationship against the U.S. and in support of terrorist groups and states. The three regimes increasingly coordinate their policies and resources in a three way partnership aimed at counteracting and circumventing U.S. policies in the Middle East and Latin America. Within this relationship, Cuba plays a strategic role in terms of geography (proximity to the U.S.), intelligence gathering (both electronic eavesdropping and human espionage) and logistics.

In addition to its proven technical prowess to interfere and intercept U.S. telecommunications, Cuba has deployed around the world a highly effective human intelligence network. The type of espionage carried out by Ana Belén Montes, the senior U.S. defense intelligence analyst who spied for Cuba during some 16 years until her arrest in 2001, has enabled the Castro regime to amass a wealth of intelligence on U.S. vulnerabilities as well as a keen understanding of the inner-workings of the U.S. security system. Such information and analysis was provided to Saddam Hussein prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and is being provided to a strategic ally like Iran. 


Current and former members of Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA), a Basque terrorist organization continue to reside in Cuba. While some of these terrorists are on the island as part of an accord between the Cuban and Spanish governments, others are hiding in Cuba, fugitives of Spanish justice.

12, 13

On January 24, 2014 the Castro government decreed that it would now begin to freeze bank assets affiliated to Al-Qaeda in Cuba. The Castro regime tacitly admitted that they had been facilitating financing of terrorism.

“Hezbollah in Cuba,” the Hamas-funded Turkish “charity” known as IHH continues to operate in Havana. IHH is a member of the “Union of Good,” an umbrella organization that financially supports Hamas.


“Hezbollah ‘Moving Freely’ in U.S. with Cuban-Made Venezuelan Passports”, February 2016


Members of Iran’s terror proxy Hezbollah “are moving freely” within the United States and Latin America, courtesy of Venezuelan passports issued by a Cuban company hired by Caracas, reports the UK-based Asharq Al-Awsat.


“The Iran-Cuba-Venezuela Nexus”, November 2014


Regular readers of this column will remember that in July the U.S. asked local officials here to arrest Venezuelan Gen. Hugo Carvajaland to extradite him on suspicion of drug trafficking with Colombian guerrillas. He was detained but the Netherlands stepped in, refused the extradition request and let him go.

7, 8

In Venezuela and Bolivia, Iran has moved to the next level, developing a military presence through joint ventures in defense industries. In Venezuela, the state of Aragua, where Mr. El Aissami is now governor, is ground zero for this activity.

Havana applauds this Islamic intervention. Since the rise ofchavismo, Cuba has supplied intelligence services to Venezuela and its regional allies, notably Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador. Mr. Humire says it has also supplied passport-information technology to allow these countries to process individuals from the Middle East, hand out new documents and maintain the secrecy of true identities. Cuba has used this capacity to exchange information with like-minded nations, including Russia and Iran.


“Venezuela Helped Argentina Protect Iranian Terrorists with Fake Passports”, March 2015


The Veja report, translated from Portuguese to Spanish by Argentine news outlet Infobae, cites several officials described as “ex-members of Hugo Chávez’s cabinet” who now live in exile in Washington, D.C., after defecting from the current regime of President Nicolás Maduro. Those interviewed claim that “Argentine government representatives received large quantities of money from Iran,” and that Iran explicitly requested Argentina’s help in protecting Hezbollah terrorists responsible for the 1994 bombing of the Argentine Israel Mutual Association (AMIA), an attack that left 85 dead and dozens wounded.


“Obama lands in Cuba as first US president to visit in nearly a century”, March 2016


“Iranian-Sponsored Narco-Terrorism in Venezuela: How Will Maduro Respond”, April 2013

14, 15, 16, 17

Farah produced a research paper for the U.S. Army War College in August 2012 about the “growing alliance” between state-sponsored Iranian agents and other anti-American groups in Latin America, including the governments of Venezuela and Cuba.

This alliance with Iran uses established drug trade routes from countries in South and Central America to penetrate North American borders, all under a banner of mutual malevolence toward the U.S.

The results of this access are largely secret, though security experts who spoke with U.S. News believe the attempted assassination of the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington, D.C.‘s Georgetown neighborhood was carried out by Iranian intelligence operatives.

“Each of the Bolivarian states has lifted visa requirements for Iranian citizens, thereby erasing any public record of the Iranian citizens that come and go to these countries,” wrote Farah of countries such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia and Panama.


“The New, Improved Axis of Jihad”, May 2013

2, 3 , 4 , 5

Indicators and warnings continue to grow concerning the resurgence of an “Axis of Jihad” comprised of Iran, Hizballah, and al-Qa’eda. This axis is not new: its three actors, both national and sub-national, have been working together in an operational terror alliance for over two decades. Still, so many seem unaware not just of this alliance, but of the ideological bonds that brought them together in Khartoum, Sudan, in the early 1990s and have kept them together to the current day. The bond is as old as Islam, and includes the commitment to jihad [war in the name of Islam] and Islamic Shariah law; the threat is to all free and democratic societies which stand in the way of global Islamic government and the forcible application of Islamic Shariah Law.

This modern-day Axis of Jihad was formed in the Sudan under the aegis of the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Omar al-Bashir and his sometime political ally, National Congress Party chairman Hassan al-Turabi. Al-Qa’eda as such had not yet taken its current form, but after the end of the 1980s Afghan war against the Soviet Union, Usama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri had found safe haven in the Sudan. Al-Bashir and Turabi are pan-Islamists, meaning they see the world in terms of the Dar al-Islam (House of Islam, where Shariah is enforced) versus the Dar al-Harb (everywhere that is not under Islamic Law). Such a worldview chooses to disregard the ancient intra-Islamic schism between Sunni and Shi’a and instead to unify the entire Islamic world in jihad against the “infidel.”

So it was that al-Bashir and Turabi invited the Iranian regime leadership and its Hizballah terror proxies to Khartoum in late 1990 to meet with the future leadership of al-Qa’eda. Then-Iranian president (and once again a 2013 candidate for the office) Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, intelligence director Ali Fallahian, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Mohsen Reza’i and other top Iranian leadership figures accepted al-Bashir’s invitation and traveled to Khartoum, along with Islamic jihadis from around the region.

There, and in subsequent meetings that took place in Khartoum throughout the early 1990s, the alliance was formed among Iran, Hizballah, and what soon would be known as al-Qa’eda. Usama bin Laden was especially interested in the explosives expertise coupled with a “martyrdom” mentality he had seen demonstrated by Hizballah with such deadly effect against Western targets. It was arranged that Imad Mughniyeh, Hizballah’s top terror operative, would commit to training Usama bin Laden’s growing cadre of terrorists in explosives techniques, especially those involving suicide truck bombings that could bring down large buildings. Training camps were set up in Sudan, Lebanon, and elsewhere where al-Qa’eda’s would-be shahid recruits could learn this craft. The attacks at Khobar Towers, the U.S. East Africa Embassies in Dar Es-Salaam and Nairobi, against the USS Cole, and eventually the 9/11 attacks themselves were all the result of this terror alliance.

17, 18, 19

The Tri-Border region of South America, where the borders of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay met, served as an early hub of terror operations from the 1980s onward for the Iranian Embassy in Buenos Aires and Hizballah, which jointly directed the 1992 and 1994 terror attacks against the Israeli Embassy and Jewish Cultural Center, respectively, from this lawless area. Since 2005,Iran’s operational base in Venezuela has become the nexus for its operations across the Western Hemisphere, including South, Central, and North America. Diplomatic relationships with Venezuela and other Latin American regimes hostile to the U.S., such as Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua also provide Iran with a means of evading international isolation and sanctions, obtaining a ready source of fraudulent travel documents, and laundering money.

Hizballah’s operations in the Western Hemisphere, including inside the U.S. and Canada, are noted with special concern by U.S. officials: former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff remarked that Hizballah made al-Qa’eda “look like a minor league team,” while former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage has called Hizballah the “A team” and al-Qa’eda the “B team.” Masters of clandestine intelligence tradecraft, as well as among the most highly trained and ideologically-committed special operations forces anywhere, Hizballah (which is trained by the Iranians) expends considerable effort establishing cell networks across the Americas. These cells are assigned to pre-attack casing and surveillance; fundraising via a variety of scams like cigarette smuggling as well as narcotrafficking; and operational planning for terror attacks. Former U.S. Ambassador Roger Noriega  testifies regularly for Congress to detail Hizballah's collaboration with narcotraffickers and guerrilla groups (such as the FARC -- Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) whose drug-running and terror training activities are becoming ever more complex, dangerous, and threatening to U.S. national security, as well as that of friends and allies throughout the hemisphere.

Venezuela’s Margarita Island, better known as a prime tourist destination, has become a safe haven for terrorists and drug smugglers, as well as Hizballah’s banking and finance hub in the Western Hemisphere. According to Noriega, Hizballah runs countless businesses and safe houses on the island. Even closer to home, Hizballah has forged operational relationships with Mexican drug cartels such as Los Zetas. The links are opportunistic, rather than ideological, on both sides; Hizballah increasingly uses narcotics trafficking to fill funding gaps left by cutbacks in Iranian largesse, while the cartels benefit from Hizballah’s explosives, tunneling, and weapons expertise. Al-Qa’eda, too, has boasted about the ease of moving non-conventional arms and weapons of mass destruction into the U.S. via the Mexican drug tunnels. Kahlili’s reportingnames al-Qa’eda operative Adnan Shukrijumah, who has been spotted and tracked over the years by U.S. and allied security agencies from Canada to the U.S., and south into Latin America, among the list of operational commanders awaiting attack orders from Iranian Qods Force commander Qassem Suleimani, the overall Iran-Hizballah-al-Qa’eda coalition commander.


“Climate philanthropist George Soros invests millions in coal”, August 2015


Billionaire climate philanthropist George Soros invested more than $2m (£1.3m) in struggling coal giants Peabody Energy and Arch Coal in recent months, despite having once called the fuel “lethal” to the climate.

4 , 5

The Hungarian trading titan is the 29th richest person on earth; according to Forbes he is worth $24.2bn. In 2009, after being convinced by Al Gore of the urgency of the climate challenge, he pledged to spend $1bn of his own money on renewable energy and funded the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) thinktank.

At the time, Soros said: “There is no magic bullet for climate change, but there is a lethal bullet: coal.” A report produced by CPI in June 2014 concluded that transitioning away from coal represented a cost-effective way to reduce emissions. CPI declined to comment on their benefactor’s apparent inconsistency.


“George Soros pledges $1bn to search for clean energy”, Οκτώβριος 2009

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Billionaire financier and philanthropist George Soros has pledged to invest more than $1bn (£625m) of his own money in clean energy technology to tackle climate change. Speaking in Copenhagen on Saturday evening, the Hungarian-born Soros also announced the foundation of the Climate Policy Initiative, which he will fund with $10m annually for the next decade.

Soros, ranked the world’s 29th wealthiest individual by Forbes magazine, said: “There is no magic bullet for climate change, but there is a lethal bullet: coal.” Soros, who already holds limited investments in clean coal technology ventures, explained he would apply “stringent conditions” to the disbursement of the $1bn. “I will look for profitable opportunities, but I will also insist that the investments make a real contribution to solving the problem of climate change.”

The Climate Policy Initiative, formally launched in Berlin next month, would focus on the efficacy and implementation of policy, said Soros, “to protect the public interest against special interests”. The new global climate watchdog will be based in San Francisco and headed by Stanford professor Thomas Heller.

Soros’s speech at the Project Syndicate editors’ forum came a day after climate talks in Bangkok ended in deadlock and 57 days before world leaders gather in the Danish capital to thrash out a new climate agreement. Soros said: “Global warming is a political problem. The science is clear; what is less clear is whether world leaders will demonstrate the political will necessary to solve the problem.”

Soros revealed that he had been converted to the cause of tackling climate change by former US vice-president Al Gore. While he lacked any scientific expertise, he said, “the one thing I have is the ability to put money to work”.


“George Soros pledges $1bn to search for clean energy”, October 2009

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Billionaire financier and philanthropist George Soros has pledged to invest more than $1bn (£625m) of his own money in clean energy technology to tackle climate change. Speaking in Copenhagen on Saturday evening, the Hungarian-born Soros also announced the foundation of the Climate Policy Initiative, which he will fund with $10m annually for the next decade.

Soros, ranked the world’s 29th wealthiest individual by Forbes magazine, said: “There is no magic bullet for climate change, but there is a lethal bullet: coal.” Soros, who already holds limited investments in clean coal technology ventures, explained he would apply “stringent conditions” to the disbursement of the $1bn. “I will look for profitable opportunities, but I will also insist that the investments make a real contribution to solving the problem of climate change.”

The Climate Policy Initiative, formally launched in Berlin next month, would focus on the efficacy and implementation of policy, said Soros, “to protect the public interest against special interests”. The new global climate watchdog will be based in San Francisco and headed by Stanford professor Thomas Heller.

Soros’s speech at the Project Syndicate editors’ forum came a day after climate talks in Bangkok ended in deadlock and 57 days before world leaders gather in the Danish capital to thrash out a new climate agreement. Soros said: “Global warming is a political problem. The science is clear; what is less clear is whether world leaders will demonstrate the political will necessary to solve the problem.”

Soros revealed that he had been converted to the cause of tackling climate change by former US vice-president Al Gore. While he lacked any scientific expertise, he said, “the one thing I have is the ability to put money to work”.


“Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros Lead Launch Of Clean Energy Fund”, November 2015


Gates committed $1 billion of his money and was the “intellectual architect’‘ behind the effort to get investors involved, U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said. The business leaders are making their pledges conditional on governments also pledging more money, said a former U.S. government official who is familiar with the plan.


“Best Energy Funds To Invest Like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg”, December 2015


Stocks of solar and other clean energy companies may be seeing a light at the end of the tunnel finally. They spiraled into a bear market the past year as looming expirations on government subsidies dimmed their growth prospects. A group of billionaire heroes, led by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, came to the rescue Monday. At the Paris climate-change summit, they announced the launch of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition. In all 28 uber-wealthy investors from 10 countries are committing to invest in clean energy technologies in hopes of speeding up clean energy development and lowering costs.


Investing in solar and clean energy comes with many risks that can be only taken lightly if you make money by the megawatts like Gates and Zuckerberg. The stocks have severely underperformed the stock market over the past five years. They are one of the few industries that never regained their pre-financial crisis high while the rest of the stock market surpassed it three years ago.


“Hacked Soros Memo: $650,000 to Black Lives Matter”, August 2016


“Black Lives Matter cashes in with $100 million from liberal foundations”, August 2016

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6

For all its talk of being a street uprising, Black Lives Matter is increasingly awash in cash, raking in pledges of more than $100 million from liberal foundations and others eager to contribute to what has become the grant-making cause du jour.

The Ford Foundation and Borealis Philanthropy recently announced the formation of the Black-Led Movement Fund [BLMF], a six-year pooled donor campaign aimed at raising $100 million for the Movement for Black Lives coalition.

That funding comes in addition to more than $33 million in grants to the Black Lives Matter movement from top Democratic Party donor George Soros through his Open Society Foundations, as well as grant-making from the Center for American Progress.

“The BLMF provides grants, movement building resources, and technical assistance to organizations working advance the leadership and vision of young, Black, queer, feminists and immigrant leaders who are shaping and leading a national conversation about criminalization, policing and race in America,” said the Borealis announcement.

In doing so, however, the foundations have aligned themselves with the staunch left-wing platform of the Movement for Black Lives, which unveiled a policy agenda shortly after the fund was announced accusing Israel of being an “apartheid state” guilty of “genocide.”

Released Aug. 1, the platform also calls for defunding police departments, race-based reparations, breaking, voting rights for illegal immigrants, fossil-fuel divestment, an end to private education and charter schools, a “universal basic income,” and free college for blacks.

9, 10

Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said corporations and others may want to think twice about partnering with the Ford Foundation, the fifth-largest U.S. philanthropy with $12.4 billion in assets.

“The Ford Foundation has traditionally been leftist, at least since the 1970s, on law-enforcement matters. So it’s not a huge surprise, but it’s certainly disappointing,” said Mr. Johnson. “I guess potential donors may want to look at the [Black Lives Matter] movement and see the damage, destruction and murders that they’ve left in their wake.”


“New Israel Fund : Ford Foundation Funding”


“Where Does Black Lives Matter’s Anti-Semitism Come From?”


“O’Reilly: Donations From George Soros ‘May Present a Problem’ for Hillary”


“George Soros”

Views on antisemitism

On November 5, 2003, at a Jewish forum in New York City, Soros partially attributed a recent resurgence of antisemitism to the policies of Israel and the United States, and the role of wealthy and influential individuals:

There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that. It’s not specifically anti-Semitism, but it does manifest itself in anti-Semitism as well. I’m critical of those policies… If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish. I can’t see how one could confront it directly… I’m also very concerned about my own role because the new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world… As an unintended consequence of my actions… I also contribute to that image.124

In a subsequent article for The New York Review of Books, Soros emphasized that

I do not subscribe to the myths propagated by enemies of Israel and I am not blaming Jews for anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism predates the birth of Israel. Neither Israel’s policies nor the critics of those policies should be held responsible for anti-Semitism. At the same time, I do believe that attitudes toward Israel are influenced by Israel’s policies, and attitudes toward the Jewish community are influenced by the pro-Israel lobby’s success in suppressing divergent views.125

Soros has come under criticism in relation to antisemitism, for his funding of – what in the view of some commentators are – anti-Israel groups and anti-Israel activism.126127 including a number of groups that campaign for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel.128

NGO monitor argues that Soros is part of the movement to delegitimize Israel, claiming:

The evidence demonstrates that Open Society funding contributes significantly to anti-Israel campaigns in three important respects: 1. Active in the “Durban strategy;” 2. Funding aimed at weakening U.S.support for Israel by shifting public opinion regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iran; 3. Funding for Israeli political opposition groups on the fringes of Israeli society, which use the rhetoric of human rights to advocate for marginal political goals.129


“Financier Soros puts millions into ousting Bush”


“Soros, Alarmed by Trump, Pours Money into 2016 Race”


“Soros Made Twice as Much Under Obama as Under Bush”, September 2012


“Fidel Castro may have known of Oswald plan to kill JFK, book claims”


“JFK, the Forgotten Zionist”


“8 Things You May Not Know About Lee Harvey Oswald”


“Lee Harvey Oswald”

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was an American sniper who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. According to five U.S. government investigations,[n 1] Oswald shot and killed Kennedy as he traveled by motorcade through Dealey Plaza in the city of Dallas, Texas.

Oswald was a former U.S. Marine who defected to the Soviet Union in October 1959. He lived in the Belarusian city of Minsk until June 1962, at which time he returned to the United States with Marina, his Russian wife, eventually settling in Dallas.


“Black Lives Matter Wants to Push Socialist Sanders Even Farther Left”, February 2016


“Obama: Racism is in America’s DNA”, June 2015


“Why black Americans love Fidel Castro”


“Castro government: We will never return fugitive cop killer to U.S.”


“Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor”, November 2009

1 , 5

Former Vice President Al Gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capital firm where Mr. Gore is a partner.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore’s firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses.

Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.

Silver Spring Networks is a foot soldier in the global green energy revolution Mr. Gore hopes to lead. Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.


“How Marxism Killed Keystone”, January 2012


“Liberal Billionaire Promises Cash, Hillary Comes Out for Green Energy”, July 2015



* The New York Times and the Mexican Industrialists*

The New York Times is the newspaper of the Mexican Industrialist Carlo Slim, the richest person in the world until very recently. See Forbes “Mexico’s Carlos Slim Reclaims World’s Richest Man Title From Bill Gates”, July 2014.

Carlo Slim and the other Mexican industrialists export their products to United States, and the Mexican government collects billions of dollars in taxes from these industrialists. The Mexican industrialists and the Mexican government are both deeply hurt by Donald Trump, because Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA i.e. the free trade agreement between United States, Canada and Mexico.

Recently the communist dictator of Cuba Fidel Castro died. The anti-American New York Times calls Fidel Castro “The Cuban Revolutionary who Defied U.S.”. See New York Times “Fidel Castro, Cuban Revolutionary Who Defied U.S., Dies at 90”, November 2016.

For the control of the anti-American New York Times by the Mexican industrialists see “Carlos Slim becomes top New York Times shareholder”, January 2015.

The New York Times was controlled by a very rich Jewish family until it almost went bankrupt in 2009, when it was saved by the Mexican industrialists.

Fidel Castro together with KGB they were sending the cocaine of Pablo Escobar to United States in order to finance terrorists and socialists in United States and Latin America, and to also live in great luxury. See “The Financing of the Anti-Trump Protests”.

After the election of Donald Trump the value of the shares held by Carlo Slim fell by 5 billion dollars, and the same is true for other Mexican industrialists. And obviously the same applies to their partners in the United States. See Bloomberg “The World’s Richest People Lose $41 Billion on Trump’s Win”, November 2016.

So the New York Times waged a war against Donald Trump on behalf of the Mexican industrialists and Trump threatens to take the New York Times to the court. See the New York Times “Donald Trump Threatens to Sue The Times Over Article on Unwanted Advances”, October 2016.

In Mexico Donald Trump has two enemies. The first one is the Mexican government and the Mexican industrialists, and the second one is also the drug cartels which are controlled by Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Hezbollah and FARC.

Now the Mexican industrialists together with other American lobbies in the United States, for example the “green” lobby, are waging a war against Trump. California is the champion of green energy and it borders Mexico, and these lobbies try to convince the people of California to leave the United States i.e. CALEXIT.

Note that California imports solar panels worth billions of dollars from China.

Remember that the leftist anti-American Hollywood is located in California, and the Chinese, the Arabs and the Mexicans are investing billions of dollars to buy Hollywood stars in order to promote their anti-Americanism.

Image 1

Image 2


“Fidel Castro, Cuban Revolutionary Who Defied U.S., Dies at 90”, Νοέμβριος 2016


“Carlos Slim becomes top New York Times shareholder”, January 2015

1, 2, 3, 4 Paragraph

Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim has become the largest shareholder of New York Times Co (NYT.N) after exercising warrants to double his stake in the publisher to 16.8 percent.

Entities affiliated with Slim exercised the warrants he bought in 2009 when he loaned the company $250 million during the height of the financial crisis.

New York Times, controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through Class B shares, paid back the loan in 2011.

Slim’s total stake is valued at $341.4 million, based on the stock’s Wednesday closing price of $12.28.


“The Financing of the Anti-Trump Protests”


“Mexico’s Carlos Slim Reclaims World’s Richest Man Title From Bill Gates”, July 2014

1 Paragraph

Carlos Slim Helú is once again the world’s richest person, thanks in large part to a sharp increase in telecom giant América Móvil’s share price both in U.S. and Mexican markets. Slim bumped Microsoft (NYSE:MSFT) cofounder Bill Gates from his perch as the world’s richest, a post Gates has held since May 2013.


“Carlos Slim Wants U.N.-Run ‘War Free Sanctuaries’ For Refugees Fleeing Violence”, September 2015

1 Paragraph

Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helú thinks he may have an answer to the current humanitarian crisis of  tens of thousands of refugees from the Middle East and Africa sweeping into Europe. Speaking last week at the Mexico Siglo XXI conference, a youth rally in Mexico City sponsored by Slim’s Fundación Telmex, Slim proposed the creation of “war-free zones” for refugees and called on the United Nations and world governments to work together toward that goal.


“The World’s Richest People Lose $41 Billion on Trump’s Win”, November 2016

1, 2 Paragraph

Mexico’s wealthiest person lost $5.1 billion in the wake of Donald Trump’s stunning upset over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Carlos Slim, who is fifth-richest in the world, shed 9.2 percent of his fortune after the peso dove as much as 12 percent on the news.

Slim led declines of $41 billion on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index at the start of U.S. trading Wednesday. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index was down 1.1 percent at 10 a.m. in New York. Stock markets across the globe wavered on news that the New York real estate mogul would become the 45th U.S. president.


“Donald Trump Threatens to Sue The Times Over Article on Unwanted Advances”, October 2016

1 Paragraph

Donald J. Trump threatened to sue The New York Times for libel on Wednesday night in response to an article that featured two women accusing him of touching them inappropriately years ago, but the newspaper defended its reporting and told Mr. Trump’s lawyer that “we welcome the opportunity to have a court set him straight.”


“Carlos Slim : Early Life”

Slim was born on January 28, 1940, in Mexico City,12 to Julián Slim Haddad (born Khalil Salim Haddad Aglamaz) and Linda Helú Atta, both Maronite Catholics of Lebanese descent.


“Expert: Latin American Cartels Paying ‘Hezbollah Tax’ to Move Drugs into Europe”, September 2016


“Trump chooses Breitbart News boss Stephen Bannon to be his chief strategist”, November 2016


“Trump disavows the white nationalist ‘alt-right’ but defends Steve Bannon hire”, November 2016


“Mexican Drug War”

3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Paragraph

Given its geographic location, Mexico has long been used as a staging and transshipment point for narcotics and contraband between Latin America and U.S.markets. Mexican bootleggers supplied alcohol to the United States gangsters throughout the duration of the Prohibition in the United States,94 and the onset of illegal drug trade with the U.S. began when the prohibition came to an end in 1933.94 Towards the end of the 1960s, Mexican narcotic smugglers started to smuggle drugs on a major scale.94

During the 1970s and early 1980s, Colombia’s Pablo Escobar was the main exporter of cocaine and dealt with organized criminal networks all over the world. When enforcement efforts intensified in South Florida and the Caribbean, the Colombian organizations formed partnerships with the Mexico-based traffickers to transport cocaine through Mexico into the United States.103

This was easily accomplished because Mexico had long been a major source of heroin and cannabis, and drug traffickers from Mexico had already established an infrastructure that stood ready to serve the Colombia-based traffickers. By the mid-1980s, the organizations from Mexico were well-established and reliable transporters of Colombian cocaine. At first, the Mexican gangs were paid in cash for their transportation services, but in the late 1980s, the Mexican transport organizations and the Colombian drug traffickers settled on a payment-in-product arrangement.


The Geopolitics of Energy & Terrorism Part 11

The following chapters are independent essays written in 2016, and they can be read in any order.The wars for the global resources of oil and natural gas are the topic of most essays. To a large extent, the wars of the 20th and 21st centuries were the result of energy rich countries competing to secure their exports, or the result of energy poor countries competing to secure their access to energy resources.Many episodes of the energy wars of the 20th and 21st centuries are described in the following essays.I.A.

  • ISBN: 9781370941995
  • Author: Iakovos Alhadeff
  • Published: 2017-01-25 19:50:25
  • Words: 15558
The Geopolitics of Energy & Terrorism Part 11 The Geopolitics of Energy & Terrorism Part 11