Understanding The Power-Contest Between Aristocracies

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Eric Zuesse,

At the core of global power stands the conflict between the Sauds and their Sunni clergy, versus the Iranians and their Shiite clergy.

One can’t understand U.S.-Russian relations, nor much else of what is happening in the world, without knowing the relevant historical background; and the origins and nature of the Sunni war against Shiia are arguably the most essential part of that. Just how the United States came to back the Sunnis, and how Russia came to back the Shiites, in this war, will be discussed in subsequent articles.

This great intra-Islamic conflict, little understood outside the Middle East, came into clearer-than-ever focus on 2 August 2013 when Sami Kleib at al-Monitor headlined "Saudi Arabia Tries to Cut a Deal With Russia Regarding Syria”, and he reported about Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud’s trip to Moscow, as the Director of Saudi Intelligence. It was an extraordinary private meeting, because the Sauds and the Russians have been enemies ever since the Sauds allied themselves with the Americans against the atheistic Soviet Union in 1945. Kleib wrote that:

Like all Saudi Arabian leaders, Bandar wants to deal a blow to Hezbollah and weaken Iran. And they will do anything to accomplish that, including hitting President Assad’s regime.

But why did Saudi Arabia change its mind and decide to send Prince Bandar to a country that “supports the genocide in Syria”?

To find the answer, first look for Iran.

Then, Kleib noted the central point:

Saudi Arabia faced a choice: to reach an understanding with either Iran or Russia.

Saudi Prince Bandar — sometimes called “Bandar Bush” because he was virtually accepted as a member of the Bush family — had been forced into a position of choosing between Russia and Iran as an ally to join with the Sauds’ war to dislodge Assad from Syria; and he chose Russia to become an ally with the Sauds, instead of choosing the Sauds’ ‘fellow’-Muslims, Shiite  Iran.

Why did the Sauds choose Russia, over Islamic Iran, to join them?

Russia, to the Sauds, represents (even today), as Kleib put it, “the ‘capital of communist atheism’.” (After all: Putin had once been a communist, though he was now a follower of the Russian Orthodox Church.) Iran, by contrast, represents the leadership of what to the Sunni Sauds is their real competition:  Shiite Islam.

The Thirty Years War in Europe was fought between Catholics and Protestants, two competing wings of Christendom. It was a vicious and deadly war. Both sides of it were killing for the same God — just different clergies and their respective aristocracies.

The civil war in Iraq after Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 was between Shiites and Sunnis; and they too were killing each other for the same God — just different clergies, and their respective aristocracies.

Before the Sauds-Salafists (Wahhabists) can defeat atheists and former atheists (Russia), and also defeat non-Islamic religionists (such as the vast majority of Europeans and Americans), they must first settle their scores against the Shiites — above all, against Iran.

Furthermore: the fundamentalist Salafist-Wahhabist Saud family, in 1945, allied with the Christian-majority nation of America, against the atheistic Soviet Union; and, today, Russia is (reverted to its being) an overwhelmingly Christian-majority nation; so, some of the Sauds’ sheer animus against Russians has, indeed, subsided a bit. However, by contrast, Iran has become (after the 1979 ousting of the American stooge Shah) assertively Shiite, which is, perhaps, to the Sauds, even more infuriating than is atheism.

However, it actually goes much deeper back than that: It goes back to the deal in the year 1744, that the fanatical anti-Shia cleric Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab and the ambitious gang-leader Muhammad ibn Saud (the founder of Saudi Arabia) made, which established simultaneously the Saudi-Wahhabist nation and the Wahhabist sect of Islam, both of which are joined-at-the-head with Saud’s descendants, so as to constitute the existing nation of, actually, Saudi-Wahhabist Arabia. (It’s actually not only Saudi. The Sauds fulfill their contract, because, if they didn’t, the Wahhabist clergy would support a revolution to overthrow them.) This deal was the most clearly and succinctly described in the 1992 U.S.-Library-of-Congress-published book by Helen Chapin Metz, Saudi Arabia: A Country Study (and the highlighting of a sentence in it here is by me, not by Metz):

Lacking political support in Huraymila [where he lived], Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab returned to Uyaynah [the town of his birth] where he won over some local leaders. Uyaynah, however, was close to Al Hufuf, one of the Twelver Shia centers in eastern Arabia, and its leaders were understandably alarmed at the anti-Shia tone of the Wahhabi message. Partly as a result of their influence, Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab was obliged to leave Uyaynah, and headed for Ad Diriyah. He had earlier made contact with [and won over to his hatred of Shiia] Muhammad ibn Saud, the leader in Ad Diriyah at the time, and two of  [Saud’s] brothers had accompanied  [Saud] when he [in accord with Wahhab’s hate-Shiia teachings] destroyed tomb shrines [which were holy to Shiia] around Uyaynah.


Accordingly, when Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab arrived in Ad Diriyah, the Al Saud was ready to support him. In 1744 Muhammad ibn Saud and Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab swore a traditional Muslim oath in which they promised to work together to establish a state run according to Islamic principles. Until that time the Al Saud had been accepted as conventional tribal leaders whose rule was based on longstanding but vaguely defined authority.


Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab offered the Al Saud a clearly defined religious mission to which to contribute their leadership and upon which they might base their political authority. This sense of religious purpose remained evident in the political ideology of Saudi Arabia in the 1990s.


Muhammad ibn Saud began by leading armies into Najdi towns and villages to eradicate various popular and Shia practices. The movement helped to rally the towns and tribes of Najd to the Al Saud-Wahhabi standard. By 1765 Muhammad ibn Saud's forces had established Wahhabism — and with it the Al Saud political authority — over most of Najd.

So: Saudi Arabia was founded upon hatred of Shiia Muslims, and it was founded upon a deal that was made in 1744 between a Shiia-hating fundamentalist Sunni cleric Wahhab, and a ruthless gang-leader Saud, in which deal the clergy would grant the Sauds holy legitimacy from the Quran, and the Sauds would finance the spread of Wahhab’s fanatical anti-Shiia sect.

The Sauds are thus obsessed with Iran, and with its foreign Shiite allies, such as Assad in Syria, Houthis in Yemen, and Hezbollah in Lebanon — and want them all dead, if those Shiites won’t become subservient to Sunni clerics.

The United States is (and since 1945 has been) allied with the Sauds. But the U.S. was now reaching out to Iran, for a deal on nuclear inspections. This antagonized the Sauds. So: the Sauds were considering the possibility of becoming allied instead with Russia against both Assad and Iran. This despite the fact that America’s aristocracy (such as the Bushes - see below) is obsessed to overthrow or else cripple Russia, so as to give the U.S. aristocracy virtually a power-monopoly over the entire world.

That meeting between Bandar and Putin on 2 August 2013 was for the big-power stakes; it was for really history-shaping stakes. If Bandar had succeeded, then the post-World-War-II era (the U.S.-Saudi alliance especially) would have definitively ended; and, going forward, a Russia-Saud alliance, including the other Sunni-controlled nations — Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Turkey, etc. — would be at war to defeat Syria and other Shiite nations, especially their leader: Iran.

The U.S. would have become odd-man-out: desperately trying to get Sunni Pakistan’s military (Pakistan’s aristocracy) to ally with the U.S. instead of with the Sauds. If Pakistan were to go with Saudi Arabia (such as, for example, the Wahhabist Taliban would hope), then Iran would be at war against not only the Arabic aristocracies to the west, but against the Pakistani aristocracy to the east. (Pakistan’s aristocracy mainly run the military, and so in order for Pakistan to go with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s aristocracy would be joining with, and would no longer resist, the Taliban and other Wahhabists in Pakistan. Pakistan would become a Saudi satellite state.) Also, the Afghan aristocracy, being Sunni, would be a part of the Saudi alliance (as they already largely have been, since at least 1979; Afghanistan is a Saudi satellite). Virtually the entire Islamic world would be united behind the Sauds.

The U.S. would lose its influence in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The EU would be the site of enormous conflicts between the old Christian majority and the flood of new Muslim refugees, most of whom would be Sunnis who would feel torn between their loyalties to Mecca versus to their new Christian-majority home-nation.

The big losers, in other words, would be not only the clergy and aristocracy in Iran, but also the clergies and aristocracies in Europe and the U.S.

Bandar Bush was actually angling for the defeat of the U.S., and not only of Iran. (He had been a major donor to Al Qaeda. George W. Bush’s Saudi buddy had contributed to financing the 9/11 attacks.)

Putin said no. He refused Prince Bandar’s offer.

The U.S. aristocracy continues trying to overthrow Putin and any nation’s leaders who cooperate with him. Previously, it was Gaddafi in Lybia, then Yanukovych in Ukraine. Now it’s Assad in Syria. Side-coups had also been attempted but failed in Venezuela, Ecuador, and possibly a few other countries.

After the 13 November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, the major world leaders met at the G-20 talks; and, in conclusion of the conference, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov summed up on November 17th by saying that:

Analysis of the strikes delivered by the United States and its coalition at terrorist positions [in Syria] over the past year drives us to a conclusion that these were selective, I would say sparing, strikes and in the majority of cases spared those Islamic State groups that were capable of pressing the Syrian army. It looks like a cat that wants to eat a fish but doesn’t want to wet its feet. They want the Islamic State to weaken Assad as soon as possible to force him to step down this or that way, but they don’t want to see Islamic State strong enough to take power.

In other words: even at the G-20 conference right after the Paris attacks, the U.S. remained more anti-Russian than anti-jihadist. Whereas the American public were vastly more anti-jihadist than anti-Russian, U.S. President Barack Obama was committed to the same policy that he had pretended — both to Russian leaders and to the American public — to be opposed to when he was running against Mitt Romney in 2012; and, as Romney put it: “This [Russia] is without question our number one geopolitical foe.” In America’s dictatorship, Obama’s repudiation of Romney’s statement turned out to have been a lie from Obama — Americans ‘elected’ there Romney merely in blackface.

*  *  *

In a previous article, “How America Double-Crossed Russia and Shamed the West,” I quoted the detailed account by Mary Louise Sarotte, about George H.W. Bush’s having double-crossed Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991 by having Bush’s agents tell Gorbachev that the U.S. had no aim of conquering Russia and that if Gorbachev would peacefully let the Berlin Wall fall and East Germany become absorbed into West Germany, then "NATO will not expand itself to the East.” However, when German Chancellor Helmut Kohl tried then to proceed that way to the end of the Soviet Union, Bush brought Kohl to Camp David and told him in private there, “To hell with that! We prevailed, they didn’t.” Kohl from that moment on worked as part of the American aristocracy’s continuing sub-rosa war to take over Russia — and NATO now virtually surrounds the eastern half of Russia. Kohl’s protégé Angela Merkel continues this.

Bush’s successor Bill Clinton followed through on the senior Bush’s double-cross by bringing into NATO Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic. Bush’s son then brought in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Obama brought in Albania and Croatia, and he’s still trying to bring in Ukraine, after his coup there in February 2014, whose aim was largely to get that big one into NATO — plus to cut off Russia’s gas-supplies into Europe, which pass through Ukraine.

Anyone who would deny that the U.S. aristocracy aren’t rabid to take over Russia is ignoring a lot of recent history, especially the most important parts.

As regards the Saudi obsession to defeat Iran: The billionaire Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal was reported on 2 July 2015 to have said in Saudi Arabia’s newspaper Okaz (with highlighting here by myself, to indicate what I see as the most important parts):

All my Muslim brothers and sisters must understand that it became a moral imperative for all inhabitants of war-torn Middle-East, namely Arabs, to desist their absurd hostility toward Jewish people.


My sovereign, King Salman has instructed me to open a direct dialogue with Israel's intellectuals building amicable ties with our Israeli neighbors.

The same English-language site then reported on 27 October 2015 that he said in Kuwait’s newspaper Al Qabas:

I will side with the Jewish nation and its democratic aspirations in case of outbreak of a Palestinian Intifada (uprising) and I shall exert all my influence to break any ominous Arab initiatives set to condemn Tel Aviv, because I deem the Arab-Israeli entente and future friendship necessary to impede the Iranian dangerous encroachment. … The whole Middle-East dispute is tantamount to life and death for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from my vantage point, and I know that Iranians seek to unseat the Saudi regime by playing the Palestinian card, hence to foil their plots Saudi Arabia and Israel must bolster their relations and form a united front to stymie Tehran's ambitious agenda.

I have been unable to find in English any record of a repudiation by Saudi King Salman of either of those comments. Talal’s statements come at a time when the U.S., Obama Administration, had negotiated an agreement with Iran about nuclear issues. A re-alignment of the key global aristocracies might result from this situation. The U.S. is willing to negotiate with Iran but refuses even to work together with Russia to defeat jihadists in Syria. (Or at least refused prior to the 13 November 2015 ISIS terrorism in Paris.) America’s attitude toward Russia has been unremittingly hostile, as if Russia had done anything that threatened the United States (except to respond to America’s/NATO’s aggressive moves against Russia, such as its overthrow of Ukraine’s government, next door). Clearly, America’s aristocracy have played their public as suckers; but a big debate in American politics these days is whether the U.S. should temporarily reduce its anti-Russian focus in order to increase its anti-jihadist focus after the November 13th Paris terrorist attacks.

In order for the U.S. to end its war against Russia, a basic re-alignment of aristocracies would occur. The U.S., like Russia, would be aligned with Iran. Israel doesn’t want that to happen. Israel is aligned with the Sauds. Does Israel control U.S.? Will the American public continue to favor America’s being controlled by Israel? Will even American Jews continue to support America’s being controlled by Israel? America’s aristocratic Jews do, but will the vast majority, the others, or will they instead repudiate their aristocracies, not only American but Israeli? Or, instead, will America abandon Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni aristocracies, and Israel’s aristocracy; and, so, abandon the fundamentalist-Jewish apartheid state, and re-assert its own democracy?

These are not only questions about America’s ideology — whether to be democratic, or instead aristocratic (as it has been since at least 1981). These questions are about America’s military and economic position in the world.

The United States remains a part of the Saudi-Israeli-U.S. alliance; it remains fundamentally inimical to democracy. It remains as an aristocratically controlled nation, which accepts control of the public by a theocratic-aristocratic alliance via the state, and rejects control of both the aristocracy and the clergy by the public via the state. It sides especially with the aristocracy against democracy.

However, even secular-democratic nations, such as Russia and a few others in Europe, are constantly under both aristocratic and theocratic threats. Much of Russia’s aristocracy crave to return to the Yeltsin years when the U.S. aristocracy controlled there. And Russia’s alliance with Iran is with a theocratic Shiite state, no authentic democracy.

The key decision is for the U.S. aristocracy: whether to continue as dictators there, or, instead, abandon both the Sauds who control Arabia, and the Orthodox Jews who have come to control Israel. Barring that, there is no way in which the current soaring ‘defense’ budgets will head down again: ‘defense’ stocks will continue to rise, and services to the public will continue to erode. The world is headed for an increase in wars.

The last U.S. President before 1981, Jimmy Carter, said recently that the United States is “just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president.” Changing this will be difficult if not impossible. The global aristocracies might not ‘win,’ but dislodging them from power is extremely unlikely. Their wars will continue to be our wars.

The world’s 80 wealthiest individuals own half of the world’s wealth, and the way that this was calculated ignored the very wealthiest people entirely, including the wealthiest of all, King Salman of Saudi Arabia, whose actual wealth is certainly well in excess of a trillion dollars. So, the true number there wouldn’t be 80 individuals, but perhaps more like only 40, many of whose personal fortunes aren’t even calculated by Forbes, etc. But regardless of whether it’s instead as large as, say, 70, the wealthiest people need to grab wealth from some of the other wealthiest people in order raise their respective rank, as studies indicate to be the main motivation for the super-rich — rank instead of money per se. For example, “the richest 8.6% own $224.5T (trillion), while the poorest 91.4% own only $38.7T.” So, stealing from even a large number of individuals in the poorest 91.4% won’t likely increase the rank of a person who is in the top 100 worldwide — they’ve got to steal from each other, in order to raise their rank. Wars are the way that’s done. It’s an essential business for the global aristocracy, especially at the global top; and so, as the world’s wealth becomes more and more concentrated, more and more weapons will be sold. There’s just no other way for it to happen. Whether any of them are willing to go so far as nuclear war is another question. Bluffing is one thing; willingness to follow through with it, is something very different.

*  *  *


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
AlaricBalth's picture

Crips vs Bloods. Nothing left but carnage.

Pa Kettle's picture

This has to be the single most asinine post ever on ZH. I can't believe that anyone here actually would be so gullible as to be sucked into the endless Punch'n'Judy show of supposedly conflicted "factions" of Islam—every last one of which always derives only to the benefit and expansion of Islam by drawing in stupid Kafir governments, like ours, to arm and fund one side or the other and buy their oil.

There is only one Quran. There is not a "moderate" Quran or a "radical" or a "Sunni" or a "Shia" Quran. There is only one Quran.

There is only one Islam. There is no such thing as "moderate" Islam or "radical" Islam or "extremist" Islam. There is only one Islam.

If you think that using politically correct soft adjectives in front of "Islam" or "Muslim" will protect you or your loved ones from the Islamic mandate for world domination you deserve whatever you get.

Every Islamic mosque—according to Mohammed himself—is a military outpost for Islam, and every Imam can order every Muslim in his mosque to war.

“War is deceit.” -Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:268, Narrated Abu Hurarira

“When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly.” -Mohammed, Quran 17:16

“When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.” -Mohammed, Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:79:Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas

The Muslim Mosque: A State Within a State:


Islam and the Divine Deception—An Empiricist Analysis of Imperialist Doctrine:


There is only ONE ISLAM.

toady's picture

Whatever. Muslims suck ass. Turn the whole middle east into a glass parking lot. 

SunRise's picture

What an aweless comment gentleone.

medium giraffe's picture

1400 years of conflict can safely be ignored?  This is a lot like saying 'there is only one Christianity' and ignoring centuries of European conflict between Catholics and Protestants.

All Abrahamic religions suck, no exceptions.

Demdere's picture

Wherever you think you learned to think at, you should get a refund.  Unless it was a preaching certificate, I liked the relentless repeat "There Is One Islam", etc.  Good propaganda.

But, as reasoning minds, it really failed.

"There is one Islam".  By whose definition, exactly?  Doesn't seem like you are a Muslim, so I won't take your word for it, don't be offended, please.

If I look at other sources, I find the that the Koran is pretty much like every other Holy Book, it was written long ago, and languages aren't that clear even in the same room, much less across 75 generations.  And just like every other Holy Book, people get damn passionate about interpretations and those have left seriously mixed histories and theologies and levels of forgiveness of historical greviences.

So, standard social science outcome, some say 'yes, the divisions of religion are very deep', and others say the reverse, and each cite tons of evidence, anecdote to actual data.  But people on the ground say the same 'yes' and 'no', and point to the members of their extended families that come from the other group and attend Mosque, no problem.  That is, if you leave everyone alone and stop the killing, people can get along.  So different from civilized folks like us, right?

No different than Catholic vs Protestant, and you recall that was almost ended almost amicably sort of, mostly.


My goal is a peaceful world of happy and satisfied people.  I think that happy and satisfied people are much less likely to care about any religion, one of the major reason for rants like yours.

Fod's picture

Concerning the laguage, it seems that, as with all languages, the arab language did not have any punctuation during its first stage. Punctuation was added later and it apparently can cause confusion based on the fact that changing an accent on a letter on the same word can produce a totally different word. The accents on arab letters are dots over the letter. Thus, with a book as the Koran, all hell can break loose.

As with the above poster, there are people that do good and people that do evil, regardless of their justification (religion/ideology).

Dark Daze's picture
Dark Daze (not verified) Pa Kettle Nov 19, 2015 10:48 PM

Iran followed Zororastarism for 1,000 years, until they were over run by the Sunni Islam extremeists.


And you think there is any difference between fundamentalist Christianity or Zionism and Islam? There isn't.

WorkingClassMan's picture

Granted, Muslims don't belong in the West, and they're not good news.


However, you can't compare Shia Islam with the Sunni Wahhabi branch.  Shias are far less dogmatic, less prone to bouts of ultraviolence, and are very acutely aware of the plight of religious minorities, being a religious minority in their own faith, themselves.


Furthermore, it isn't Shia Iran that are busily building madrassas that teach Wahhabi, Salafist Sunni terror around the world--it is the House of Saud, which runs a Sunni nation.  These madrassas churn out Sunni terrorists around the world, from Malaysia and the Philippines to Iraq and Afghanistan.  This is a worldwide phenomenon, and with a goal to establish a worldwide presence of these cells in every nation.


Shia Islam isn't big on the beheading thing lately, if you'll notice.  This is primarily a Sunni event, and they brutalize everyone they cross in Syria--ESPECIALLY the Shia and their offshoot, the Alawites.  In fact, in many instances, Shia HEZBOLLAH have assisted Christian towns in western Syria and helped them defend themselves against Nusra Front and IS terrorists, who are of course Sunni. 


It wasn't Shia who bombed the World Trade Center.  It wasn't Shia who shot up those people in France.  It isn't Shia who are primarily infiltrating Europe today with the goal of displacing the native Europeans.  This is all Sunni.


In the great Sunni-Shia divide, we Westerners are best to stay out of it.  Barring that, and if push comes to shove--we should back up the Shia and Iran, because they're by FAR the lesser of two evils when compared with the Sunni Wahhabist and Salafists and the House of Saud currently lording it over the Arabian Peninsula. 


The Muslims wouldn't even BE a problem for Europe if we Westerners stayed out of their affairs and sealed our borders tight.  They wouldn't be a problem if we were clear about it and let the israelis finally fight their own battles without our expensive 3 billion a year training wheels keeping them super safe from their own violent, troublemaking ways.  Get some perspective here.

Victor von Doom's picture

Good post. Unfortunately for the West to pull out of ME affairs and tighten its borders we have a bigger problem to deal with: Judaism and Zionism.

Don't start with the "not every Jew is a Zionist" line. Not interested. One begets and supports the other. Just like Islamics beget and support Jihadists. it's identical in nature.

We won't have any freedoms or prosperity as a people again until we oust the Judaics/Zionists. All else will follow from that.

We are at war. A Cultural War. Not with Syria/Iraq/ISIS - with the world Zio/Jew/Banksters, their Hollywood/Propaganda buddies, and the Zio run alphabet agencies.

Our enemy is completely merciless and will continue with his war against us until the death of the last Western baby.

Our task is to suck it up and become even more ruthless and effective than they are.

Johnny Horscaulk's picture
Johnny Horscaulk (not verified) Pa Kettle Nov 20, 2015 11:30 PM

Where did you come across
What you try to pass off as knowledge?



jack stephan's picture

The Stranger: Beer... and a bottle.

Lutie Naylor: Ain't much good, but it's all there is.

[brings drinks]

Lutie Naylor: You want anything else?

The Stranger: Just a peaceful hour to drink it in.

booboo's picture

His other writings

"CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS" It documents and describes Christianity’s creation-event, which occurred in the year 49 or 50, in Antioch (present-day Antakya, Turkey), 20 years after Jesus had been crucified in Jerusalem for sedition against Roman rule. At this event, Paul broke away from the Jewish sect that Jesus had begun, and he took with him the majority of this new Jewish sect’s members; he convinced these people that Jesus had been a god, and that the way to win eternal salvation in heaven is to worship him as such"

This guy is a fruit and plays fast and loose with historical records. I mean even a cursory reading of the epistles (regardless of your flavor) would debunk his bullshit, a NWO revisionist, no doubt the literary equivilent of Geraldo Rivera.

socalbeach's picture

And he's another genius who thinks Al Qaeda pulled off 9-11.

Dark Daze's picture
Dark Daze (not verified) booboo Nov 19, 2015 10:44 PM

No, actually, I have been reading history and geopolitics non-stop for the last month, and this article is right on. The aristocracy doesn't give a damn about people, only their own survival and luxury. What his all boils down to is this. Are we going to have a world that is controlled by US/Saudi/Turkish/Zionist fundamentalists who rule through intimindation, fear and depreivation or are we going to have a multi-polar world that is based in democracy and has economies that benefit all people.

That is the essential question.

Johnny Horscaulk's picture
Johnny Horscaulk (not verified) booboo Nov 20, 2015 11:38 PM

Try caesar's christ.

And jesusneverexisted.com

And the moses/akhenhaten connectionlooks better and better.


If there was a model 'jesus' he was likely an essene. Theres littledoubt paul greatly de-judaized the new cult, but it's probably over-emphasized.

The 'bible' and origin stories are mostly from around 3 CENTURIES later.

You might also try 'who wrote the bible' by friedman - who is a religious jew at pains to uphold the 'torah' but honest enough to note dates not working.

Also 'egypt knew no pharaohs or israelites'

bible-thumping twits have long obfuscated the non-historical nature of the bible. Even friedman has to worry about ofending religious jews with the truth.

PoasterToaster's picture
PoasterToaster (not verified) Nov 19, 2015 9:57 PM

The number one issue facing Americans is to depose the aristocracy.  Toward that end, people need to be educated out of this stupid war against Islam and war against Russia.  These silly little distractions simply lengthen the amount of time the useless aristocrats remain in power. 

They are the true Free Shit Army; parasites one and all.

ThirteenthFloor's picture

Poaster -> are you so sure they are our Aristocrats ! Much of our cabinet has dual citizenship with that little country in the SE corner of the Med.

Leave the rest to conjecture. Slaves always get free shit from their masters.

Grandad Grumps's picture

The Sauds are part of the old corrupt world order. Iran is not their real concern. The Saud are afraid that they will become irrelevant and that the new world will have ne use or sufferance of them. In the past their form of evil was tolerated. I am guessing that they play no part in the future.

InnVestuhrr's picture

Another simple problem with a simple solution



Anonymous User's picture
Anonymous User (not verified) InnVestuhrr Nov 19, 2015 10:50 PM

Not just that..make them soylent green and feed some hungry mouths with it.

ThirteenthFloor's picture

When you have a trillion dollars, stealing the other guys trillion is not the name of game, power is the name of the game, and if you are a psychopath, doing a little evil probably feels good too.

Frankly it's not what anyone on ZH would say is close to normal life.

opport.knocks's picture

I respect a lot of Eric Zuesse's writing but there is a lot of pure nonsense here.

Such as to suggest that Bandar Bush met with Putin to betray the Saudi's relationship with the USA: "If Bandar had succeeded, then the post-World-War-II era (the U.S.-Saudi alliance especially) would have definitively ended." If that relationship ends before the USA wants it to (i.e. the Saudis run out of oil and money) - the House of Saud would be gone in less than a month.

Bandar Bush meets with Putin for two reasons, to find out what Putin wants in exchange for doing what the USA wants and to float trial balloons.

Russia has zero respect for the Saudis, and rightly so, Hence Lavrov was caught muttering "fucking moroms" in that press conference in August.

hedgiex's picture

So it the same unholy trinity of Money, Religion (man made) & Politics. For a long time, there was Pax America that hold the balance; the collapsing of the Hegemony necessitates new arrangements. This should be interesting time for a G Zero, multi polar, peak debt, deformed markets, globalization etc to be exploding with all their rainbows. Most are spins undergirding vested and emerging interests. With ZH around, you get more trained each day to hear above the noises. You owe allegiance to your families only and with the rest "show me the color of your monies". Temporal alliances are "OK" with clear exits that you can enforce. 


onmail1's picture

ASURAS from the ASURA world the Abrahmic faith : 

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth

arm for arm, foot for foot

Ever warring

Their purpose is to make the planet desolate

But their time is now short

time to go back all you murdering & killing Asuras:  muslims, jewws & Christians

& give peace a chance

Go back to your asura world 

Seek_Truth's picture

You are ignorant and do not know the teachings of Christ:

Eye for Eye

38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’h 39But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbori and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 5:38-48

onmail1's picture

The words mean nothing, a tree is known by its fruit

Jesus was a spiritually awakened person,

But before he could teach others how to 

gain the knowledge (as in genesis) that would make humankind angelic

he was killed by the evil , cabals & europeans

Jesus could not accomplish ..

as a result Christianity has degenerated into the same

category of materialistic philosophy of Jewws & muslims

What ?

That human is an animal, that human should only

live for food, money & reproduce as the only way of living life,

that spirituality is dead, a farce ,

You are only as good as vegetable - Thats what abrahmic religions teach you

Whats the solution - look east ,

Seek (within you) & you shall find

Knock (the hidden door within) & it will be opened to you

Jesus rightly said : I (self) am the way , No one can know truth except thru me (self)

Yes Jesus was right but , as I say, before he could awaken others

He was killed by the evil.

(p.s. I know about spirituality much more than you can imagine, practically)

pachanguero's picture

"You may say I'm a dreamer...but I'm not the only one.  I hope someday you will join us. ""

Kina's picture


There is only one Islam. There is no such thing as "moderate" Islam or "radical" Islam or "extremist" Islam. There is only one Islam.


For god sake this absolut and total bullshit. Mindless, ignorant bigotry that makes life easier because you don't have to think. People who think this way are the greatest friends of ISIS, who want the whole world to think like this so it will force a billion peaceful muslims going about their normal life to become the enemy.  Sometimes I think it Mossad, Saudi, CIA plants in ZH trying to promote hatred and bigotry to create enemies out of nothing.

Joe A's picture

That is why there is such a great outcry of moderate muslems to the attacks in Paris....just like a few days ago in Paris when after a call for a demonstration to show that muslems were against the attacks a whopping 30 muslems showed up.....

pocomotion's picture

My understanding - it was the British, through the Rothschild aristocracy that divided the tribes of the middle east, so they could control oil and the Muslims in general. This was all prior to WW 1.  The point I got out of all this -- invest in defense industry and go about my business of self sustaining life.  When the dust settles I am either rich or dead.

Moccasin's picture

What is total bullshit is your dismissal of facts about Islam. How is it bigoted to describe different sects within a religious group? The people of Islam describe and define themselves as Shiite or Sunni, amongst other sects and tribes. Islam, like most religions has various sects, those sects include a wide spectrum of belief from fundamentalist zealots to those at the other end of the spectrum who consider themselves more secular. Lastly, suggesting there are secret service plants at ZH promoting divisiveness and hatred is more telling about you than it is about ZH. Good luck selling your bs, I am not buying it.

Joe A's picture

Bandar met with Putin to give him an ultimatum: stay out of the conflict in Syria or expect suicide attacks during the Sochi games. There were some attacks before the games and some attempts were foiled. I think Putin gave him a clear answer to that.

It is SA all along. It was in Bosnia (also there Shii and Sunnies were battling it out and just a few days ago there was a terrorist attack), it is now in Syria. Putin has sided with Iran and the Shii, although that puts his country at risk considering there is a sizable Sunni minority there. But for Putin this is more than just a religious conflict. The whole conflict is about who is going to control Eurasia.

SMC's picture

Fortunately (or Unfortunately, depending on your perspective) the aristocracies are finding out that all their alleged wealth and perceived power are worthless against a reality that involves more than the artificial constructs of human society.

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

funny, the rothchilds clan never makes forbes or other lists of the wealthy..reading Outliers by m gladwell, his list of richest families has arabs, some british nobles (not the queens family - strange?) no JEWS, not even the rothchilds clan???  looking at these lists it is clear some do not want to be on such lists and have power to be left off...sort of like everyone was no fly after 911 except the saudi princes..

Niall Of The Nine Hostages's picture

This is simple Arab envy for objectively superior Indo-European cultures. The Persians had a civilization long before Islam. Even in the 7th century the Arabs were a pack of savages overdue for the dungheap of history.

Wiping the Arabs off the face of the earth would not have cost the rest of humanity anything of real value, and would have spared civilized people a great deal of misery.

gcjohns1971's picture

Maintaining anything like a relatively stable international order among all these sociopaths has got to be like herding hundreds of rabid cats through a field of catnip.

theallseeinggod's picture

The Americans don't have aristocracy, they have plutocracy

Victor von Doom's picture

The Americans don't just have plutocracy, they have a plutocratic aristocracy of alien, culture distorting Jewish Zionists.

That's why Anglo-America is so fucked up - your people are not free at all. Not from excessive taxes, bankers, mind control, direct martial abuse. You are treated literally like the Helot slaves you continue to volunteer to be.

Read Plutarch on Sparta and you wili see your Judaic masters in a different light again.

Your culture, your lives, the lives ov your children. On your heads be it.

Victor von Doom's picture

At the core of global power stands the monolith of Jewish Zionism.

Fixed it for ya Tyler, you mouthpiece of Zio filth.