William Ramsey Investigates

I was recently invited by William Ramsey to appear on his show, William Ramsey Investigates, for the second time.

On William’s podcast, we discussed Israel and the Middle East, the recent Gaza crisis and the plot against the King of Jordan. We also spoke about Israel’s links to Far Right groups and figureheads, including the likes of Tommy Robinson, as well as false-flag events like Christchurch and Sri Lanka and the strange links between perpetrators like Brenton Tarrant and Anders Breivik to both Zionism and the Masons.

The show can be heard or downloaded here and here (and on most other podcast platforms).

My previous interview with William Ramsey, on the Libya Conspiracy, can still be found here.

William is also an author, who has published several books, including Children of the Beast: Aleister Crowley’s Shadow Over Humanity and Prophet of Evil: Aleister Crowley, 9/11 & the New World Order.

His most recent book, Global Death Cult: The Order of Nine Angles, Atomwaffen & the Slaughter of the Innocents, can be purchased here – and is a fascinating read.

My thanks to William for the invite.

Also, for anyone who never heard the interview I did with Horizon Talk Radio recently (discussing the COVID pandemic, as well as 9/11 and the Lockerbie conspiracy), it can be found here.


Related articles:Why Israel Created Hamas‘, ‘The Al-Aqsa Controversy & the Plot Against Jordan‘, ‘Tommy Robinson – A Bullshit Psy-Op for Dummies‘, ‘The Christchurch Massacre – And the False-Flag Motion Machine‘, ‘Azov Battalion, White Jihad & the Return of the Nazis‘, ‘Seeds of Fascism: International Zionists, Right-Wing Populism & the Return to the 1930s‘…


S. Awan

Independent journalist. Pariah. Believer in human rights, human dignity and liberty. Musician. Substandard Jedi. All-round failure. And future ghost.


  1. Nice interview, thanks for sharing my earthling friend.

    You asked a few questions in the interview, in accordance with the explanation of the subject. For example, there was a question like why didn’t the British keep their promise to King Faisal.

    I think the British did not promise him, that is, as far as I know at least not in writing. And it was clear beforehand that today’s Saudi Arabia would go to the Saudi family.

    The Saud family, is a family from the Aneze (or El-Aneze) tribe, is a tribe that has spread to many places in Arabia from Syria to Iraq. The British signed a treaty with the chief of the Aneze tribe, Fahd Ibn Haz’al, in 1917. You can find it in the archives. With this treaty, the Aneze tribe declared that they would remain loyal to Britain. However, the situation was not the same for King Faisal. He was a pro pan-arabism. A united Arab world was in favor of a combination of Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and present-day Arabia. However, since Gertrude Bell knew that this aim of hers was very contrary to the British idea of ​​a middle east drawn with a ruler, both she and Lawrence reported all information about Faisal to England. Of course, British waited until the appropriate time as usual, with a use and throwaway policy.

    On the other hand, I think Faisal was a character who lived in the dreamland world, wanted the impossible and was unaware to be used. The united Arab world he wanted was impossible. However, he was a person who did not have the political foresight to see what kind of ambition he has inside.

    Faisal’s father, Hussein Bin Ali, was also living in the same dream which to unite Arabs under the same roof. His dreams were rewarded with the golds that Lawrence had delivered to him from England, and the dividing the territory into his children, including King Abdullah of Jordan. These families (Hussein Bin Ali and Saud family) was actually a family that united with the British against the Ottomans at that time and caused tens of thousands of Turkish soldiers and civil Turks to die in the Arabian cities and deserts with brutally and treacherously.

    It’s brutal because over 3700 Turkish civilians were beheaded overnight in Baghdad alone, on Faisal’s orders. Not counting other cities. Arab historians of the period, even Arab poets, proudly talk about tens of thousands of Turks whose heads were cut off. This is also in the Ottoman archives, including the Arab archives. (between 1914-1918). According to sane western historians, the blood-bathed streets and the smell of dead Turks pervades the cities, and the brutality was unbelievable. Their orders was the “kill all Turks” by their commanders and Lawrance. Even history also records that Lawrence said frantically to the Arabs:
    “The best among you is the one who will kill the most Turks! You will not take a prisoner. You will kill anyone who wants to surrender!”
    For example, in September 1918, a group led by Lawrence, during the retreat of the Turks from Tafas, attacked the train car in Dera, which fulled with sick and injured soldiers, and killed all of them.

    It is treacherous because, for example, during the Tripoli War, the Arabs who fought alongside the Turks at the front changed sides overnight and went to the other side. Same happened at the others front too.

    Also current King Abdullah 2’s mother is also English. His father’s first wife, Queen Dina, was of Circassian origin and was born in Istanbul. I guess these are explaning why Abdullah 2 feels to connect with western. Also, the fact that they are descended from the prophet Muhammad is parallel to the belief that the Hashemites are descendants of the prophets. As far as I know, there is no recorded document about this.

    • Thanks for listening, my friend: and thanks for providing such a detailed and learned comment here. Your breadth of knowledge is always impressive: and anyone who knows figures like Lawrence and Gertrude Bell in this day and age is someone I want to be having conversations with.
      In terms of Faisal living in a dreamland, I accept that he was maybe being overly trusting and overly optimistic: but the idea of pan-Arabism itself wasn’t all too unrealistic. It was really what people like Faisal envisioned when they joined the Arab Revolt. And much later Arab leaders, like Gaddafi and Nasser, seemed also to have an interest in pan-Arab ideas. In terms of WWI, the pan-Arab ideal was certainly seen as preferable to the French/British plan of carving up the Arab world into small states and creating all of these sectarian problems.
      In terms of the Arab slaughter of Turks in those incidents, especially Dera – yes, these are well documented war crimes. In war, I guess, these things happen (but shouldn’t): in Lawrence’s account of Dera, their actions were supposedly provoked by Turkish troops having slaughtered civilians in an Arab village. There was also an existing argument that the Arabs – because they didn’t belong to a nation and were therefore not seen as having the same status as other combatants – were not being afforded the rights of the Geneva Conventions against things like torture; whereas in much of the war, the Turkish soldiers were being afforded those rights by the Arabs (wherever the British were able to make sure of it). Accounts of war are always tricky – there’s always two sides and there’s always a bias in how those events are remembered or recorded. We could look, for example, at how differently opposing nations or societies view something like the Armenian Genocide.
      The most unfortunate thing about WWI was that it was a pointless war. Just lots and lots of death and suffering, for no real purpose.

      • Thank you but in fact, my knowledge of the first world war is limited to only certain fronts and events after. I have always been more interested in the second world war, because firstly, the air forces and warplanes of the warring parties, and secondly, both the past of the Soviets and the birth of socialism are my primary interests. Of course, there’s also the of mysterious and dark pasts of maybe the worst villains in world history, Hitler and the Nazis. So what I’m saying is that I’m probably not as knowledgeable on this subject as you are, my friend. Despite my less knowledge on this subject, perhaps my greatest luck is to know which sources I should read, and of course to be able to compare the correct sources of the official records of the east (Turkey, todays and past Ottoman era, Russia, todays and both tzarist and Soviet era) with the propagandist historiography of the west.

        In this context, “Accounts of war are always tricky – there’s always two sides and there’s always a bias in how those events are remembered or recorded.” I agree with the truth of your words. Concrete evidence is needed to avoid acting with prejudice. For me, frontline reports during the war are the most important tangible evidence. In other words, a British officer, a Russian officer, a Turkish officer and others speak/tell the truth in their correspondence within the front. Since the subject is opened from Lawrence, who was a secret officer of the British intelligence with the most optimistic point of view, as in the movie that was written by his memoirs, caused a lot of incomplete and wrong information to circulate, including the attack in Deraa, or about the Turkish officer harassing him. What he told was not true. On that train were soldiers who had retreated and were all wounded and or sick; or he never crossed paths with the highest administrative military chief in the region, whom he said harassed him, because the highest administrative chief of the time, Hacim Muhittin Bey, was not there at that time. And the raid on the train in Dera, as you emphasized, “their actions were “-supposedly-” provoked by Turkish troops having slaughtered civilians in an Arab village”.

        The place mentioned, Tafas, write down in history as the Turks killed about 250 people in an Arab village, as you said. This is correct information, so Turkish records write the same way. And it is horrible, of course. But I too think it’s supposedly that Lawrence’s Arab troops were affected by this massacre and made a raid to Turks. Because there are records that Turks were slaughtered before this massacres. This whole front was actually referred to as the Palestinian front, when 1914 began. That is the area where Tafas and Dera are located. However, with the withdrawal of the German and Turkish forces in years(4 years long), the front gradually shrank towards the north and took different names. At the begining, there were 5 army corps there, formed by German and mostly Turkish forces. The total of the 5 Army Corps were named the Lightning Army Group, led by German General Otto Liman Von Sanders. The Tafas and Dera events had also happened during of the Battle of Nablus on this front.

        After 4 years of wars on the Palestinian front, when it came to the battle of Nablus, only 1.5 of these army corps, each of which consisted of three divisions, had remained. If we take into account that each division had 15 thousand people, there were about 70 thousand of the 225 thousand mostly Turkish soldiers stayed alive after 4 years only in this front. Being under the bombardment of air and ground forces not only by the British, but also by the French, Turkish forces were exposed to the attacks by the Arabs, who saw this as an opportunity. After the Hejaz railway was blown up and the Turkish troops began to retreat, they were attacked by the Arab tribes on all retreat paths. Just before passing through Tafas, for example, about 700 Turks had been killed by Arabs on the road the day before. When they entered Tafas, the people of Tafas attacked to Turks, nearly 50 Turks were killed, and it was very sad that the Turks attacked the civilian people of Tafas there in return. Turkish wounded soldiers were killed as a result of the attack in the famous Dera train incident just one day later after Tafas. There is another similar one, and two days later, Turks were killed in Dera again, this time at the station, about 1500 of wounded turkish soldiers were killed before the train left. Western sources do not tell this second one, probably they think that one is sufficient.

        After all (I know my comment extended, sorry), the wars are totaly loss for ordinary people, peoples, but for the leaders, it’s money, new markets and gaining power. And for this money, new markets, to gain power, the leaders organize campaigns with emotional sauce to the peoples. In fact, it has no emotional side for those at the front or civilian populations in war zones; there are only traumas, terror and death for them. Whenever war pilots, war ship captains, tank drivers or etc, say “no, I am not following this order,” maybe then everything will be different.

        In addition, I still think the issue of pan-Arabism is unrealistic. In fact, today’s civil wars, the use of sects so much, the understanding of sects and sectarianism in the Arab world, compared to the past, strengthens this view for me. As you mentioned, Gaddafi and Nasser acted with the idea of pan-arabism, but their difference was that they wanted to make a renaissance to pan-arabism and build it with socialism. The Ba’ath was also based on this idea. Contrary to them, Faisal had a view centered on Islamic solidarity for pan-arabism. Perhaps because Nasser and Gaddafi and others saw later that an Arab world unification within the Islamic framework would be difficult, and also with other influences of the period, they embarked on this path. However, this geography, namely the Middle East, is a place where identities are truly defined by religious identity. When you meet someone in one of these countries, you can infer that “he is a member of that sect” from his clothes, the way he speaks or etc. In recent years, borders have become more clear between the sects as almost every sect lives within itself without mixing with others. I’m not just talking about Shiites, Sunni and Alevis here. They also have dozens of sub-branches. Even within themselves, they are divided into dozens of pieces.

        Of course, the idea of a pan-Arabism integrated with socialism was the most developed model for that period. Looking from this era, I can easily say that it was a dream, but for that period, it was probably the best for the period. But as I said, I’m talking about the total process of all of them up to now. Ba’ath’s mistakes can be shaped primarily as the revival of this duty to the Assad family in Syria, or Saddam’s actions in Iraq. For example, a friend of mine, whose opinion on Syria I care about and who stayed in Syria for a time, said before the civil war: There is a proverb used in Syria “the one gets up early found a coup d’état first in Syria.” So, the Assad family made Syria today’s shape. Which also we know what Saddam done in Iraq. I am putting Gaddafi in different place from these, because he was different with actions and ideas. Were these mistakes predictable at that time? Most likely not, it was unpredictable from the inside of the region. However, from the outside, leaders such as Lenin and Ataturk who totaly supported the Arabs independence against western imperialism and, with different expressions and reasons, stated that the unification of the Arab world in the center of Arab nationalism and religion at that time was a distant idea. Obviously, these views were not taken into account from inside.

  2. Tk y

    Good job

    I am impressed. (nice voice)

    It’s a subject that interests me a lot.


    (I reorganize the sections. I have been censored a lot on the subject and on Shiism which is linked by its origin on points and those who manipulate dogmas.)

    It is difficult to speak openly in France about this.

    In addition I do not live in France now, and where I am I have more to facilitate to speak about the subject.

    In any case, I will listen to your interview again to better understand what you have shared.


    • Thank you Neilly. I would also be very interested to see your views on Shiism, which is something I have not gone into much. I’ve explored Wahhabism and Zionism at great length, but not Shiism so much.

      • I update my articles and the links on the subject.

        And I will get back to you.

        When I first started I made montage videos to explain things.

        My montages I made them in a metaphorical form etc. (Young and I needed to shout things. It was a little, for people of the sensational or too strange. It was double-edged.)


        The videos got a lot of attention and people started to care about the topic. Doubt has been installed and people have changed.

        Now there are more people talking about this kind of subject.

        But I also had threatening holdouts.

        I was not surprised to find out who were the ones who blew up my work and who peddle the fake.

        Since then, I have better control my emotions and I denounce differently.

        Having said that, who would have said (before) for a while that an American did on the subject like you, worrying about the vision or the feelings of others (supposedly enemy) .


        I have a hard time expressing things sometimes, maybe that’s why I started in a weird way.

        Bless y

  3. By the way my earthling friend, I forgot to mention, your voice in the recorded interviews as podcasts is not very clear. So it’s not like your own audio recordings that you upload to youtube. Your voice is louder and clearer in your own videos no doubt. But in other interview podcast files, your voice sounds weaker. Here, in some places I listened twice. I think you should speak a little louder in these recordings of inteviews. Of course, that’s my humble opinion. I know also, we, non-native English speakers like me are expecting a David Bowie tone and accent from every British, right, haha!

Leave a Reply