100 years of humiliation

[سيف الله]

Salaam

More videos and books, to help make sense of the situation we are in.

First of more on how the globalists operate.

You might be surprised to realise that many globalists engage in occult practices.

The Occult & Subversive Movements: Tradition & Counter-Tradition in the Struggle for World Power

Blurb

‘Conspiracy theory’ is now a widely familiar term, albeit generally referred to with sarcasm and scorn. Yet ‘criminal conspiracies’ are heard before law courts. The Mafia, the Thuggee in India, and Triads in China are all recognised criminal conspiracies that have ritualistic and religious elements.

During the Cold War there were government investigations into a ‘communist conspiracy’. President Dwight Eisenhower in his ‘Farewell Address’ referred to a wide-ranging conspiracy he called the ‘military-industrial complex’. However, if political conspiracies are referred to that involve secret societies such as Freemasonry, the suggestion is met with derision. The situation is not helped when there are ‘conspiracy theorists’ who make outlandish claims and fail to support their allegations with reliable sources.

In 'The Occult and Subversive Movements' Dr. Kerry Bolton applies scholarly methodology, in layman’s terms, to the question of conspiracies and the occult. Belief in magic, mysticism and the supernatural are unnecessary. What is relevant is that such notions are acted on by those who do believe them. Bolton uses reliable sources to marshal the evidence that there are occult initiates who have for centuries been fomenting revolutions, and using materialistic, rationalistic and communistic ideologies that appear contrary to occultism.

Bolton examines the lineage of occult societies, occult doctrines of power conflict, the role of occult societies in revolutions, the undermining of traditional religions in pursuit of a one-world ‘syncretic religion’, the use of the United Nations and the European Union, and the centuries’ old dream of rebuilding the Temple of Solomon as the centre of a universal republic. Dr. Bolton understands the power of conspiracy and secrecy in history. All readers, from all traditions, will find this book worthy of attention

What created our current predicament, well this is one of the best primers to understanding.

A Peace to End All Peace, 20th Anniversary Edition: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East

Blurb

The Middle East has long been a region of rival religions, ideologies, nationalisms, and ambitions. All of these conflicts—including the hostilities between Arabs and Israelis, and the violent challenges posed by Iraq’s competing sects—are rooted in the region’s political inheritance: the arrangements, unities, and divisions imposed by the Allies after the First World War.

In A Peace to End All Peace, David Fromkin reveals how and why the Allies drew lines on an empty map that remade the geography and politics of the Middle East. Focusing on the formative years of 1914 to 1922, when all seemed possible, he delivers in this sweeping and magisterial book the definitive account of this defining time, showing how the choices narrowed and the Middle East began along a road that led to the conflicts and confusion that continue to this day.

A new afterword from Fromkin, written for this edition of the book, includes his invaluable, updated assessment of this region of the world today, and on what this history has to teach us.

A review

What a fine mess

By Ulrik Jungersen Waltheron

If you want to put the Middle East into a historical perspective and understand its present day difficulties there is no better book than this, and despite being 20 years old, it still stands completely unrivaled. It is insightful, well balanced, eloquently written and at times almost reads like an adventure story.

The book covers the region from the outbreak of war in 1914 and through to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1922. Fromkin gets away with covering this enormous canvas on which many books could be written on single topics (and indeed have). He does this by following a clear story line, not over emphasizing certain periods and by not peddling a political agenda.

The book is essentially built around Winston Churchill large sections are also devoted to other contemporary grandees such as Asquith, Lloyd George, Balfour, Lord Kitchener, General Allenby, Sir Mark Sykes, Francois Picot, Emir Hussein, King Faisal, Enver Pasha, Attaturk, TE Lawrence, Gertrude Bell and many other splendid characters. These people are richly described and make the book come alive in a way, where most other popular history books fail miserably.

The book also elegantly incorporates the imperial political thinking of the time and provides excellent coverage of the drivers and motivations of specially the British in their involvement in the conflict. It covers the intrigues, manipulations and conspirations that took place both within the British government and between the allies, whose main goal it was to dismantle the Ottoman Empire, weakened by gradual disintegration, carve up its constituent parts between them. The Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration being excellent examples hereof. One is left with the impression that this was a game of "Risk" on a massive scale. In fact on such a large scale that it stretched the British Empire beyond its political and military means, which again resulted in appalling execution with extraordinary and needless loss of life.

The price of these ambitions proved high for all parties. The Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1922 and Enver Pasha died on a battlefield near Dushanbe in Tajikstan fighting the Red Army in 1924. But also for the British Empire, this was the "beginning of the end". Australia began to lose confidence in Britain following the Gallipoli disaster, after years of fighting hopeless battles in Europe, Iraq and Turkey, British soldiers increasingly became mutinous and were turning against the establishment. In his description of this period, Fromkin really picks up on the political current of the time and describes how Churchill understood this and probably avoided severe social unrest in the UK.

The book effectively finishes with the 1923 Lausanne peace treaty. Britain had been replaced by the United States as the world's number one superpower. The US did not favour colonialism and hence the Sykes-Picot Agreement was confined to the historical archives. Instead Churchill and Gertrude Bell drew up a map of a new Middle East, created Palestine (under British mandate) and Syria / Lebanon under French. Feisal needed a kingdom, so they created Iraq. If Feisal was getting a kingdom, Abdullah wanted one too. So they drew Jordan. It was random, sure to create problems for the future and by no stretch of anyones imagination "their finest hour".

The book draws on a superb range of sources, is extremely well researched and has a bibliography large enough to populate a small library.

 

[Alamgir]

I always wondered why the Ottomans were called the caliph, like who appointed them? was there a referendum?

The mughals of India ruled over a much larger muslim population! The british even used to taunt the ottomans that they rule over muslims than the caliph, so how is his title even justified?

The Mughals didn't control the holiest cities of Islam, nor did they control any major Islamic cities other than Lahore, Agra and Delhi, which only became significant because of the Mughals.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Like to share and inform, and for Muslim Brothers and Sisters to learn the lessons of history.

Extract from A Peace to End All Peace - Chpt 10

Kitchener sets out to capture Islam​

The West and the Middle East have misunderstood each other throughout most of the twentieth century; and much of that misunderstanding can be traced back to Lord Kitchener’s initiatives in the early years of the First World War. The peculiarities of his character, the deficiencies of his understanding of the Moslem world, the misinformation regularly supplied to him by his lieutenants in Cairo and Khartoum, and his choice of Arab politicians with whom to deal have coloured the course of political events ever since.

To appreciate the novelty of Kitchener’s approach to the Middle East, it must be remembered that when the Ottoman Empire entered the First World War, Asquith, Grey, and Churchill did not intend to retaliate by seizing any of its domains for Britain. They did propose to allow Britain’s allies to make territorial gains in Europe and Asia Minor at Turkeys expense; but Asquiths Britain had no territorial designs of her own on Ottoman lands, either in the Middle East or elsewhere. Kitchener, however, maintained that when the war was over, it was in Britain’s vital interest to seize much of the Ottoman Empire for herself: the Arabic speaking part. This would mean a total reversal of Britain’s traditional policy.

Kitchener, like most Britions who had lived in the East, believed that in the Moslem religion counts for everything. But the Field Marshall and his colleagues in Cairo and Khartoum mistakenly seemed to believe that Mohammedanism was a centralised authoritarian structure. They regarded Islam as a single entity: as an ‘it’, as an organisation. The believed that it obeyed its leaders. Centuries before, Cortez has won control of Mexico by seizing the Aztec emperor; and medieval French kings had tried to control Christendom by keeping the pope captive in Avignon. In much the same spirit, Kitchener and his colleagues believed that Islam could be bought manipulated, or captured by buying, manipulating, or capturing its religious leadership. They were intrigued by the notion that whoever controlled the person of the Caliph – Mohammeds successor – controlled Islam.

Central to Kitchener’s analysis was the contention that the Caliph might hurl Islam against Britain. Since Sunni Moslems (who predominated in Mohammedan India) regarded the Turkish Sultan as a Caliph, Kitchener perceived this as a continuing threat. In Cairo and Khartoum it was believed that, as of 1914, the Caliph had fallen into the hands of Jews and German; the war Minister worried that once the world war was won, the Caliph might become a tool in the hands of Britain’s Middle East rivals, particularly Russia.

In enemy hands, the caliphate could be used (Kitchener believed) to undermine Britain’s position in India, Egypt, and the Sudan. Britain ruled over half of the worlds Moslems. In India alone there were almost seventy million of them, and Mohammedans constituted a disportionately large part of the Indian Army. In Egypt and the Sudan, Britain ruled millions more, who lived alongside the Suez Canal sea road to India. Tiny Britain’s garrisons policed these tens of millions of natives, but Kitchener knew that they could not even begin to deal with a revolt.

The British imagination was haunted by the Indian Mutiny (1857-9), the mysterious uprising, incited by religion, that had brought down the rule of the East India Company. More recently the uprising in the Sudan, which Kitchener had so brilliantly avenged, was inspired by a new religious leader whoc himself the Mahdi, a title Europeans translated as ‘Messiah’. Pan-Islamic unrest in Egypt in 1905-06 had caused Britain deep concern. For Kitchener and his entourage, the possibility of a Moslem Holy War against Britain was a recurring nightmare.

The Director of information, John Buchan, dramatized these fears in his 1916 novel Greenmantle, in which Germany makes use of a Moslem prophet in a plot to destroy the British empire. The prophet appears in Turkey; there are portents of his coming; there’s is an ancient prophecy; there’s is a modern revelation; and the region in which he intends to ignite a rebellion is made explicit. ‘There is a dry wind blowing through the East, and the parched grasses wait the spark. And the wind is blowing towards the Indian border.’

Kitchener believed that a call to arms by the Caliph against Britain during the 1914 war could be offset by the words or actions of other Moslem religious leaders. After Britain had won the war, however, more decisive action would be necessary. The reason was that when the war had been won, Russia was sure to take possession of Constantinople and – unless something was done about it – of the Caliph. Kitchener say a German controlled Caliph as merely dangerous – he would attempt to foment unrest in India to throw Britain off balance in the European war. But he saw a Russian controlled Caliph as a mortal danger to the British Empire; for (unlike Asquith and grey) Kitchener believed that Russia still harboured ambitions of taking India away from Britain. In Kitchener’s view, Germany was the enemy of Europe and Russia was the enemy of Asia: the paradox of the 1914 war in which Britain and Russia were allied was that be winning in Europe, Britain risked losing in Asia. The only completely satisfactory outcome of the war, from Kitchener’s point of view, was for Germany to lose it without Russia wining it – and in 1914 it was not clear how that could be accomplished. So the War Minister planned to strike first in the coming postwar struggle with Russia for control of the road to and into India.

Kitchener’s proposal was that, after the war, Britain should arrange for her own nominee to become Caliph. Mohammed had been and Arabian; Kitchener prised to encourage the view that Mohammed’s successors as Caliph should be Arabian too. The advantage of this was the coastline of the Arabian Peninsula could easily be controlled by the British navy; Britain would be able to insulate the Caliph from influence from Britain’s European rivals. Once Britain could install the Caliph within her sphere of influence in Arabia, Kitchener believed she could gain control of Islam. And even before the Ottoman Empire entered the war, Kitchener’s lieutenants in Cairo reminded the War Minister that an obvious candidate to be the Arabian Caliph – the ruler of Mecca – had already been in touch with him.

 

[Mahir Adnan]

last month, on another forum, a brother posted a list of mass killing which had taken place within last 100 years around the Muslim world based on Wikipedia. the list was horrible. I think somebody should recreat the list because the first one was in local language

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Why the enemies of Islam want to undermine it. Insightful.