When the greatest branches of the Germanic and Slavic tribes waned, one lineage among them rose to prominence and power: those conventionally known as the Anglo-Saxons. Today, they constitute the majority populations of Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—and, in the author’s view, represent the dominant force behind contemporary injustice.
Among these peoples there emerged, centuries ago, a doctrine known as Freemasonry, one of several European intellectual and ideological innovations. This doctrine, it is claimed, originated with the Knights Templar, who returned to Britain following the collapse of the Crusader states. Its adherents came to believe in the inherent superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race over all others, particularly the peoples of our region, and held that they were entrusted with the mission of rebuilding the so-called Temple.
To this end, they established what is known as the “Temple” in the heart of London—a structure that still stands as a symbolic representation of the Temple they believe once existed in Palestine and which they aspire to reconstruct. This conviction, contrary to the assumptions of those who believe they understand Europe merely by studying or living in it, did not originate with the First Zionist Congress; rather, it stretches back some seven centuries and is, in their view, now approaching its moment of realization.
Freemasonry evolved further, giving rise to a doctrine that may appear simplistic or even absurd to us, yet proves compelling within a European intellectual framework shaped by a deep-seated sense of superiority. According to this conception, Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry represents a synthesis between what is perceived as the legitimate Judaic inheritance of Christ—referred to in the Bible, whose authorship and compilation remain historically uncertain—and Christianity itself. Christ, described therein as “King of the Jews,” becomes the symbolic point of convergence between these traditions.
From this union emerges what is often termed “Judeo-Christian thought,” a phrase frequently invoked in European discourse to signal a sense of cultural and moral ascendancy over others, though rarely defined with clarity. From within this framework, Zionism is said to arise. In this interpretation, Zionism is not merely a political movement, but rather the contemporary expression of Anglo-Saxon dominance—rooted in a belief in Europe’s civilizational superiority and its leadership over the world, particularly over our region.
Thus, it is not surprising, within this logic, to find even Christian figures—such as Catholics who historically regarded Jews as adversaries—openly professing Zionist sympathies, as exemplified by repeated public statements from figures like the American president Joe Biden.
Zionism, therefore, is presented here not as synonymous with the State of Israel, nor as separable from Anglo-Saxon power structures. Rather, it is understood as a comprehensive political, financial, and military project aimed at global dominance. Its military arm is identified with NATO; its economic influence is associated with the global dominance of the U.S. dollar; and its instruments of influence are seen in media systems and the global film industry.
This perspective—often overlooked or obscured—is essential, in the author’s view, to understanding the nature of the conflict in our region. It is frequently misrepresented as a dispute between individual states, whereas it is, in this interpretation, something far broader. The Arab world, as previously argued, did not choose its adversaries; rather, it was chosen.
Since the fall of Baghdad in 1258—seen here as the last great Arab capital—the region has, in this telling, been subjected to successive waves of domination, treated like a football, kicked about by competing powers, each cloaking its ambitions in different justifications: religion, civilization, or liberation. Yet, in this account, all such claims are deemed false.
Zionism, it is argued, selected the Arab world as its principal adversary for the same foundational reasons outlined earlier: to compensate for an inferiority complex rooted in its adoption of religion and intellectual tradition from others. These motivations echo, in part, those that drove the First Crusade.
To these historical factors, two additional causes are added, intensifying the conflict. The first is the recognition that our region constitutes one of the richest regions in the world due to its oil and gas resources. The second—and more significant—is the perceived incompatibility between Zionist capitalism and the foundational principles of Islam.
Islam, in its economic and social dimensions, is presented as placing limits on the accumulation of wealth—through mechanisms such as inheritance laws—which, it is argued, inhibit the formation of concentrated capital. In contrast, European systems historically facilitated such accumulation. This structural difference is seen as a point of tension, as the global expansion of capital encounters resistance within the essence of Islam.
Moreover, with over a billion Muslims worldwide, even where religious adherence may vary and governance may be flawed, the enduring presence of Islamic belief is viewed as a persistent and real threat. From this perspective, confronting Islam requires control over the Arab world, understood as its historical and cultural heart, particularly in regions such as Egypt, the Levant, and Mesopotamia.
Accordingly, a chain of historical developments is interpreted within this framework: the Balfour Declaration; the post–First World War occupation of Iraq and the Levant; the carving out of Kuwait to prevent Iraq from access to its deep-water ports, the partitioning Syria into four states; the creation of a settler state in Palestine without fixed borders. Whoever recognizes a state without defined borders thereby recognizes its right to encroach upon his own borders—and has only himself to blame.”
Events such as the prolonged sanctions on Iraq, its eventual invasion, the war in Syria, the collapse of Libya, and the restructuring of political and economic relations in the Gulf are all presented as elements within a broader, coherent project of domination.
This, then, is offered as but a brief illustration of what is described as a century of sustained action under the banner of Zionism.
In conclusion, the author reiterates the principal reasons for what is described as Zionism’s hostility toward the Arab world:
- That it adopted its religion from us and seeks to erase this historical fact.
- That it drew the foundations of its intellectual tradition from our heritage while denying this origin.
- That the Islamic political, economic, and social framework poses an obstacle to unrestrained capitalist dominance.
- That our lands contain vital energy resources which remain central to global power structures.
To be continued