War on Terrorism Advances New World Order
By Timothy Burns Watson
(To be published by the Journal of American Studies)
Historically, empires have expanded very often under the pretext of civilizing the world beyond their borders with the self-righteous conviction that they were inoculating themselves against barbarism, extending the boundaries of the civilized, while assimilating the heathen and infidel under their rubric, the locus behind Pax Romana, Rule Britannia and now Pax Americana. While Victorian England’s empire building was done under the pretext of civilizing the rest of the world, it paradoxically meted out such barbarism and brutality as to beggar belief. In India alone, through their brutal extraction policies, the British were responsible for the deaths of an estimated ten to twenty million Indians in the late nineteenth century. Rather than responding to endemic famine in central and south India in the 1880s by reducing taxes, the British maintained them at a steady level, continued massive exports of food products and other necessities out of the country, while providing no relief to the starving people unless they worked. In some labor camps it is documented that the British actually provided the workers with less rations than were given to the prisoners of the Nazi concentration camps of Dachau and Buchenwald.1 Yet despite this appalling human rights record, the British continue to justify their colonial subjugation of the Indians today by claiming to have given them their parliamentary system of government and civil service, gifts for which the Indians are apparently supposed to be grateful. Pax Americana is in essence no different, though it does seem better able to conceal its true intentions, very often undertaking its campaigns of ideological annexation and genocide under the banner of “humanitarian intervention”. As Noam Chomsky points out in 9-11, since the colonization of the United States of America began, the U.S. has systematically annihilated its own indigenous population estimated in the millions, conquered half of Mexico, which itself embodied territories largely stolen from indigenous peoples, then conquered Hawaii and the Philippines, butchering thousands of Filipinos, leaving the countryside so utterly devastated that the total death toll is estimated to have reached a million souls. Over the past half century, America has extended its resort to force throughout much of the world. For the first time, on the 11th of September 2001 the guns were directed the other way with the first foreign-sponsored attack to take place on U.S. territory, Pearl Harbor not excepted because it was referred to as a “territory” at the time and was in fact a colony.2
While America does not really walk the high moral ground it purports to stand guard over as sentinel, it convinces much of the world that it does through the mainstream international news media both it and its allies control. While the world was never fooled by the genocidal and expansionist policies of the Nazis, much of the western world appears to be utterly hoodwinked by America’s expansionist aims presented under the pretext of a crusade on terror. Indeed, America seems to be very skilled at justifying its intentions under the guise of crusades against various incarnations of evil, which in essence consist of anything that contravenes its own agenda. While the imperialistic and genocidal aims of the Nazis appear to have fooled no one, America’s coefficient seems to have been effectively masked by propaganda efforts that portray its machinations as a righteous crusade against the enemies of freedom in their many incarnations such as a war on communism, a war on drugs, a war on terrorism, a war on enemies of freedom, etc. The reality is that these American crusades are no more righteous than they are conscionable and very often violate the dictates of the UN Charter itself.
One of America’s strategies for achieving world domination is to run a series of international protection rackets, in which terrorist cells trained in CIA-run training camps very often on America’s own soil, are turned loose in their countries of origin to create havoc as part of a problem-reaction-solution schema to advance the New World Order. One such terrorist training school, owned and operated by the U.S. government on U.S. soil, is the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia. Known formerly as the School of the Americas, it now goes by the title Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Protection to inoculate itself from those campaigning to have it closed down. The terrorist training school first came to the attention of the American public in 1992, when a declassified manual advocating torture and assassination as effective techniques in dealing with political movements came to the attention of the news media. Now decades old, the school has graduated over the years hundreds of future military dictators, death squad leaders and torturers, subjecting much of Latin America to a reign of terror. Graduates include such luminaries as Roberto D’Aubuisson, who single-handedly organized the death squad network in El Salvador, which claimed roughly 50,000 lives there; Hugo Banzer Saurez, former military dictator of Bolivia; Efraim Rios Montt, who orchestrated the genocidal massacre of 100,000 Mayan Indians in Guatemala in the early 1980s; General Roberto Viola, former military dictator of Argentina later convicted of murder, kidnapping, and torture during the “dirty war” of the 1970s. Claims that the school now includes courses in ethics and “human rights” training in its curriculum are simply to immunize it against further criticism. The appearance of moral cleansing is simply a ruse. The terrorist school is still training the same kind of terrorist operatives who will graduate to inflict a reign of terror on the next generation. Changing its name and curriculum under the pretext of political correctness is simply a charade to inoculate the school against further criticism and opposition.3
If the CIA seems like a Nazi organization endorsing Nazi-like policies that is because it is. Noam Chomsky says that Reinhard Gehlen of the SS was employed by Allen Dulles, the founder of the CIA, to set up the CIA network in Europe and Latin America after the war. Chomsky says that Gehlen set up a secret US-Nazi army, which extended its operations to Latin America where it supported Nazi-style regimes. Under the supervision of people like John and Allen Dulles, the co-founders of the CIA, many leading Nazis were secretly removed from Germany at the end of the war. In a British-American intelligence operation known as “Project Paperclip”, many Nazi scientists were taken to the United States and Latin America to continue their medical and genetic experiments. These German scientists would also be instrumental in seeing the Americans into space. According to some estimates, as many as 10,000 active Nazis escaped after the war. The Nuremberg War Trials appear to have been a charade to convince the public that justice was being served, while most of the leading Nazis managed to escape with the help of the American and British intelligence services, MI5 and the OSS.4
One of the current methodologies employed by the CIA and the U.S. military is to sponsor terror in order to destabilize states in which America wishes to obtain a strategic foothold. The U.S. establishment uses the terrorist networks it creates and supports to destabilize target societies as it did in the Balkans and as it is now doing in the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia. Having created the terrorist threat, the protection racket or gang of thugs, in this case the American military, then provides the protection. The practice endorsed by the U.S. government and exported to all corners of the globe is also practiced in large urban American centers, where it is referred to as “street insurance” or “protection”. In the former Soviet Republic of Georgia for example U.S. Special Forces troops, we are told “are not expected to have any combat role in Georgia.” What is not known is that training terrorists in the region is the main objective of the Special Forces. After that, we are told that Special Forces will remain in the country strictly in an “advisory capacity”, newspeak for commanding and giving orders to their trainees.5
The war on terrorism has allowed the New World Order agenda to advance by leaps and bounds. The strikes against Afghanistan have developed into mass landings by U.S. and British troops into Turkey, Cyprus, Saudi Arabia, Japan and South Korea. According to information obtained from the London and Delhi strategic studies institutes, the naval presence of NATO member countries in these regions increased by 50 percent over the period of March to December 2001. This implies that a strategy of military expansion was already in place long before the attacks of September 11. Just look at British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s diplomatic activities following the attacks of September 11th. In four early trips, he would cover 30,000 miles, visiting Paris, Berlin, New York, Washington, Brussels, Moscow, Islamabad, New Delhi, Geneva, Oman, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordon, Jerusalem, Gaza and Genoa. He would then fly back to Washington on an overnight Concorde flight to brief President Bush. Does that sound like a man with a mission?6 Not since St. Paul has anyone shown such evangelic zeal to get the word out and rally support. Both the mercurial nature and the zeal of the whirlwind trip suggest that Blair is extremely trigger happy and that the entire “around-the-world-in-four-days” trip seems premeditated and part of a preconceived agenda. Perhaps most telling and worrying is the fact that a policy report on terrorism was conveniently presented to U.S. Congress one day before the terrorist attacks of September 11, suggesting that high-ranking members of the American government may have known about the attacks in advance. The report issued on September 10th, 2001 leaves little doubt that an attack on the United States by Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network was anticipated in advance, for on the first page of the report, it states:
Usama bin Laden’s network, which is independently
financed and enjoys safe haven in Afghanistan,
poses an increasingly significant threat to U.S.
interests in the Near East and perhaps elsewhere.
The primary goals of bin Laden and his cohort are
to oust pro-U.S. regimes in the Middle East and
gain removal of U.S. troops from the region.
Based on U.S. allegations of past plotting by the
bin Laden network, suggest that the network
wants to strike within the United States itself.7
Osama bin Laden is just the latest in a long line of bogeymen employed by the U.S. to justify the advance of the New World Order agenda to achieve absolute global domination. In fact, there is no evidence that former CIA operative, Osama bin Laden, has ever severed ties with the CIA. It is hard for people to fathom but the global elite that controls this world has always employed a strategy whereby they exercise control over both sides in conflicts in order to advance the New World Order agenda for absolute global domination. By creating a series of monsters, Dr. Frankenstein in his incarnation as the CIA sets up a number of bogeymen who become larger-than-life devils who haunt us even in our living rooms and incite us to rally behind the U.S. military when the president gives them their marching orders to purge the world of yet one more evil dictator or terrorist.
The military-industrial complex and the financial establishment that bankrolls it are the secret preserve of Freemasonry. The secret society known as the Freemasons descend from a secret fraternity known as the Knights Templar. Both these organizations have made it their practice to arm both sides in conflicts, in order to profiteer off the lending of gold and money, but also to exercise control over the societies they wish to gain influence over. By pitting one side against the other, they not only exercise control over the policies and agendas of the respective governments, but they also are able to control the outcome of the conflict itself, reshaping the world in the New World Order image they had always had in mind. In fact, the “New World Order” or the “Great Work of Ages” as it is called is the long-term plan of the Knight Templar-Freemason fraternity. One need only examine the Great Seal of the United States on the reverse side of the American dollar bill to see that the foundation for the Templar-Freemason New World Order was laid with the founding of the Templar-Freemason state of the United States, where the Latin inscription, Annuit Coeuptus Novus Ordo Seclorum appears, meaning, “Announcing the Birth of the New Order of Ages”. Arming both sides in wars has always been there modus operandi. In fact, one very prominent Templar family known as the House of Guise and Lorraine made it their practice to arm both sides in conflicts, supplying gold and arms to one king and then turning around to lend gold and weapons to his rival. Interestingly, the coat-of-arms for the House of Guise and Lorraine depicts a “double cross”, which accounts for the origin of the English idiom “to double cross someone” meaning to “betray”, since it was the practice of the House of Guise and Lorraine to do precisely that, to “double cross” or betray both sides.8
With this in mind, it becomes abundantly clear that the current conflict between America and Afghanistan has been staged. Indeed, both sides have been double crossed by a media charade that has allowed the Taliban and the White House to exchange diatribes and rhetorical invectives very reminiscent of the rhetorical exchanges that occurred at the time of the Crusades: You are the evil empire. No, you are the evil empire. God is with us. No, God is with us. We are justified in launching a just war against the heathens. No, we are launching a Jihad against the infidel, etc. Most people are now aware that the manhunt for Osama bin Laden was merely a pretext for the U.S. military invasion of Afghanistan. Once the boogeyman was indelibly inculcated in the minds of the citizens of the Western world, the U.S. could then justify the invasion of Afghanistan under the pretext of routing out all vestiges of the Al Qaeda terrorist network and the Taliban regime. In fact, it appears very unlikely that the U.S. government was even interested in capturing Osama bin Laden. According to a story appearing in the Daily Telegraph on October 4, 2001, a secret deal to hand over Osama bin Laden was scuttled by Washington. A delegation led by Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the head of the Pakistani fundamentalist Jamaat-I-Islami, had allegedly reached an agreement with Mulah Omar to have Osama bin Laden removed to Pakistan, where, evidence of his involvement in the terrorist attacks of September 11 would be placed before an international court, which would determine who should have jurisdiction over the case, the World Court or the United States. Even though the proposal allegedly met with Osama bin Laden’s approval, it was turned down by Musharraf of Pakistan ostensibly because he could not guarantee bin Laden’s safety. It is unlikely that Musharraf could make this decision unilaterally; U.S. influence in his decision-making is almost certain. We are left with disturbing conclusion that the U.S. deliberately scuttled the deal to hand bin Laden over, precisely because it would deprive them of their main casus belli for the Afghan invasion. This provides further evidence that the U.S. is in breach of international law and has violated one of the central tenets of the UN Charter, which requires that recourse to military action only be taken after all diplomatic channels have been exhausted.9
The hunt for bin Laden ruse is very reminiscent of the hunt for Saddam Hussein charade played out a decade previously. While the main justification for Desert Storm was to oust Saddam Hussein from power, the policy of Washington following the invasion does not reflect this. Indeed, General Schwartkopf was deeply frustrated and annoyed with Washington for not allowing him to march on the capital, when it was clear that the Iraqi military was all but decimated and the whole country was in imminent peril of being handed to the Americans on a platter. Schwartkopf’s incredulity over the policies if Washington is evident in his words:
If we had been allowed to go on for two
or more days, we would have totally
destroyed the Iraqi forces and it would
have been a battle of annihilation. I said,
when they first called me from
Washington and asked me what my
plans were, I said that we planned to
continue the operation.10
Far from it being the intention of the U.S. government to topple Saddam Hussein from power, it appears on the contrary to be in their best interests to keep him on his throne. According to Dennis Halladay, Former Director of the UN Iraq Program, sustaining Saddam Hussein in power is a policy actively pursued by the U.S. government:
Sanctions have sustained Saddam Hussein
in power. There are many of us worldwide
who believe that that is also a policy of the
United States. Because of the Saddam
Hussein threat, quote unquote, the
Americans have sold arms on a massive
scale to the Arab states, the Gulf, Israel
of course, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.11
As with the manhunt for bin Laden, the manhunt for bogeyman extraordinaire, Saddam Hussein, is a charade, a “put on” designed to coerce the popular imagination into justifying America’s so-called crusade against ‘evil’ and ‘terror’. It may well be true that Saddam Hussein is a monster, but we have to remember who Dr. Frankenstein is before we start pointing fingers. In his present incarnation, Dr. Frankenstein is the CIA and Saddam Hussein is one of his former agents. In fact, like Osama bin Laden, there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein has ever severed ties with the CIA. In fact, it is due precisely to U.S. policy that he has become the monster that he is, having been supported with agriculture credits worth $5 billion from 1983 to 1990, and over $1.5 billion dollars in strategically sensitive exports that would evolve into his chemical and biological weapons cache, even while he was actively killing over 100,000 Kurds in the late 1980s with Washington’s knowledge. At the time, he was regarded as an ally, so his genocidal practices were given diplomatic cover, while the U.S. helped advance the genocide by supplying Hussein with the very chemical weapons that would be used to gas the Kurds.12
Realistically, the United States is directly or indirectly responsible for most of the conflicts we see in the world today. This is a policy actively pursued by the U.S. government, which orchestrates these conflicts in order to create as many hotspots around the world as possible. Such hotspots justify the intervention of the U.S. military forces, which postures as an international police force for securing peace. All the world’s a stage and this is the biggest show on earth, a charade cleverly orchestrated to advance the New World Order and the instillation of the World Army in the form of American or NATO armed services in as many countries around the world as possible. In real terms, the United States actively promotes war as its biggest export business, its military exports accounting for half of the total international arms sales in the year 2000 at $18.6 billion. A study undertaken in the mid-90s even established that the United States supplied arms or military know-how to parties involved in 39 out of the 42 conflicts staged worldwide at that time.13 All of this is part of a problem-reaction-solution strategy in which Uncle Sam deliberately creates the monsters, which later grants it the moral justification to provide the solution: military invasion and the installation of an occupying army established as a permanent fixture ostensibly to secure the peace.
In addition to being CIA cronies, Saddam Hussein and George Bush Sr. are also business partners. What is fascinating and revealing is that all three of Washington’s greatest bogeymen, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Manual Noriega have all been business partners of George Bush Sr. When the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) scandal erupted an investigation was launched that exposed a secret business partnership between Saddam Hussein and George Bush. Case No. 90 C 6863, is The People of the State of Illinois ex rel Willis C. Harris vs the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. According to investigative journalist, Sherman Skolnick, who attended a hearing in the case, Bush Sr. and Saddam Hussein split $250 billion worth of Persian Gulf oil kickbacks funneled through BCCI. Skolnick maintains that the transactions were not government-to-government transactions but private transactions between Bush and Hussein. The bank records show private transactions involving $250 billion in oil money kickbacks siphoned off of oil shipments from the Persian Gulf made from 1980 to 1990 which amounted to upward of a trillion dollars’ worth. From these oil transactions, Saddam Hussein received his generous oil kickbacks via such Bush-owned oil companies as Pennzoil. Saddam split these kickbacks with Bush Sr. and other business partners. The Chicago case eventually came before a three-judge appeals panel. One of the judges planned to release the records but was stopped cold. The so-called Justice Department intervened by circulating rumors that a member of the three-judge panel was being investigated for eight instances of bribery in other cases. The aptly named Justice Department only disseminated the stories about the bribery cases in order to blackmail the three-judge panel into keeping the documents pertaining to Bush-Saddam financial transactions hush-hush.14
This brings us to bogeyman number three, Manuel Noriega. Once again a former CIA agent and placeman was installed precisely so as to justify U.S. military invasion and the positioning of U.S. military personnel in a strategically important location from which they could launch further U.S. military adventures into Central and South America.
In fact, the CIA has been implicated by many researchers in the death of Noriega’s predecessor, General Torrijos. It is no surprise then that Manual Noriega, the CIA’s primary contact in Panama, should be waiting in the wings to take over the helm. He also happened to be the head of Panama’s intelligence network and had been on the CIA payroll since the 60s. When George Herbert Walker Bush became Director of the CIA in 1976, Noriega became his contact in Panama. Despite evidence that Noriega was involved in drug-trafficking, Bush kept Noriega on the payroll and even raised his salary to more than $100,000 a year. He even took the shocking step of eliminating a requirement that intelligence reports on Panama include information on drug-trafficking activities. Admiral Stansfield Turner, CIA Director under Carter insists that he cut Noriega off when he learned of his activities, refusing to keep him on the payroll. Bush reinstated him and gave him a raise, fostering even closer ties than had previously existed.15
In addition to being CIA cronies, Bush Sr. and Noriega were also business partners.
Investigations into the scandal-riddled Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) revealed that a Florida branch of that bank had bank records showing joint business ventures between Manual Noriega and George Bush Sr. In January 1990, the federal prosecutor in Tampa, Florida indicted top officials from the Florida branch of the bank. They escaped with only a slap on the wrist. This is because the Justice Department said that, if they were sent to prison, they would produce documents from their bank showing that George Bush Sr. had private business ventures through their bank with a series of dictators including Saddam Hussein and Manual Noriega. The bank records of the Florida branch were not seized, but the records of the Chicago branch were. This is because most of the $10 billion dollars in kickbacks to Saddam Hussein went through the Chicago branch, which also accounts for why the Justice Department is not interested in bringing charges against the Chicago bankers.16
What prompted George Bush Sr. to later turn on his former friend and business partner, Manual Noriega? It was part of the charade, the staged theatrical performance. In reality, Noriega was to become the black sheep of the Bush family by design, as this would justify the U.S. military invasion of Panama. Gabriel Gemma, Director of the Independent Commission of Inquiry on the U.S. Invasion of Panama, spoke with Noriega directly about his negotiations with the U.S. administration prior to the invasion. Noriega claims that a number of demands were placed on him by the State Department, the most pressing of which was that the United States by allowed to expand their military presence in Panama, retain the Panama Canal Zone and that the treaties be renegotiated to allow them to keep control over the 14 military bases that existed in Panama at that time. If Noriega agreed to these terms, the U.S. military would effectively take over control of his country. If he refused, the U.S. military would actively pursue a policy whereby they would take over the country. Either way, Noriega would lose quite by design. This is why Noriega, as a CIA operative, was set up as a narco-terrorist dictator in the first place. He was a stooge deliberately set up in the role of drug dealer in order to justify the later invasion ostensibly organized to oust him. It was a perfectly orchestrated coup to advance the New World Order agenda through problem-reaction-solution dialectics.17
The pretext for the Panama invasion was to remove narco-terrorist Manual Noriega from power. Once the fix was on the agenda advanced very quickly. First, in February 1988, two U.S. Federal Grand Juries in Florida indicted Noriega on charges of drug-trafficking, money-laundering, and racketeering. This was absolutely unprecedented. It was the first time a foreign head of state had been indicted in the United States. What followed was that economic sanctions had to be stepped up. This would help to make Noriega unpopular at home. Additional U.S. troops were then dispatched to Panama as part of a troop buildup. All told, Bush Sr. sent a total of 200,000 additional troops. The Panamanian Defense Forces then met with the U.S. Army Southern Command. The U.S. military then stepped up its campaign to intimidate Panamanian civilians in the streets, a move designed specifically to agitate in order to provoke a diplomatic incident, which would further justify U.S. military intervention. In the weeks leading up to the invasion, the U.S. Army’s Special Operations Command dispatched a top secret Delta Force Team to Panama. The Delta Force Team then proceeded to agitate with infiltrations of U.S. positions, firing shots in the direction of U.S. perimeters and positions, roughing up U.S. citizens in the streets, while giving all these provocations the appearance of anti-U.S. Panamanian aggressions. According to National Labor Organizer, Sabina Virgo, provocations undertaken by U.S. military personnel in Panama were frequent:
Provocations against the Panamanian people
by the United States’ military troops were
very frequent in Panama. They had several
results, and in my opinion, probably a
couple of different intents. One, I think, was
to create an international incident, was to
have United States’ troops just hassle the
Panamanian people until an incident
resulted and from that incident, the
United States could then say that they were
going into Panama for the protection of
of American life, which in fact was exactly
what happened.18 (The Panama Deception)
Incidents of Panamanian attacks on U.S. citizens were then reported in the news, thereby providing the public endorsement the U.S. administration needed to justify invasion. From there, all that was required was the creation of another bogeyman to capture the popular imagination of the American people, or as Chomsky rightly asks in his book 9-11, a question equally relevant in the case of Noriega, “Bin Laden, the devil: Is this an enemy or rather a brand, a sort of logo which identifies and personalizes the evil?”19 It is much easier to muster support for a foreign invasion when you can focus the public’s hate upon an archetype playing on both the consciousness and unconsciousness of the American people, or as Chomsky puts it, “”It is much easier to personalize the enemy, identified as the symbol of ultimate evil, than to seek to understand what lies behind major atrocities.”20 Just listen to the opening of a report by a well-known American anchorman to see how cynically the fix was on: “Manual Noriega belongs to that fraternity of international villains, men like Gadaffi, Idi Amin, and the Ayatollah Khomeini, whom Americans just love to hate.”21 The entire thrust of the media coverage was on catching bogeyman extraordinaire Manual Noriega. The mainstream U.S. media must be faulted for its total collaboration with the U.S. government. There was not a sober second thought, not the faintest murmur, not the slightest questioning of the U.S. government’s action in Panama. As journalist Valerie Van Isler maintains, the media was suffering from such myopia and tunnel vision that Manuel Noriega was the only thing in focus, while peripheral issues were completely ignored:
They focused on Noriega to the exclusion
of what was happening to the Panamanian
people, to the exclusion of the bodies in
the street, to the exclusion of the
numbered dead, to the exclusion of what
happened to the women and children in
this country during the midnight invasion.22
By playing on the fears of the American public, its fear of drugs, violence, and crime, the U.S. government had basically been given the green light for whatever interventionist policies they had in mind. What is not widely known is that the UN General Assembly convened to vote on the U.S. military invasion of Panama. What is even less widely known is that the UN Assembly voted against the invasion. Only one TV broadcast mentioned the results of the UN vote, but even then, amazingly, no appraisal was made of its significance.23
Precisely the same modus operandi was used during the Gulf War. The U.S. government used the same MO it always uses when pursuing its expansionist policies. As ever the MO consisted of a war against something wicked, immoral and unconscionable, in this case the invasion of one sovereign nation’s territory by another. The hypocrisy of such a position is unspeakable when you consider the fact that American armed forces are already employed in 140 countries around the world. In fact, before September 11, 2001, America had permanent military bases in 69 countries, but has used the 9-11 crisis as a pretext for military intervention in several more.24 During the Gulf War, everyone danced to the tune of the Pied Piper, George Bush Sr., whose oft-repeated mantra was, “America stands where it always has ? against aggression, against those who would use force to replace the rule of law,” this despite the fact that the consummate hypocrite had committed the very same sin during the invasion of Panama. In fact, George Bush Sr. has the distinction of being the only head of state to be condemned by the World Court for the “unlawful use of force” in Washington’s war against Nicaragua.25 The truth is that the Gulf War had nothing to do with protecting the sovereignty of Kuwait, but had everything to do with U.S. expansionist objectives in the Middle East and Central Asia, where it would ultimately like to rule over the oil rich region, while securing a strategic military foothold in an area any game of Risk will tell you would ensure world domination. Any pretense that the Gulf War was undertaken for the sake of safeguarding human rights and protecting security in the region can safely be dismissed when we see the deliberate and systematic loss of life meted out on the civilian population of Iraq during and after the Gulf War. What is not known is that depleted uranium was used in the tomahawk missiles and other bombs, resulting in what has been dubbed the “Gulf War Syndrome”. Former U.S. Attorney-General Ramsay Clark brings the entire issue into shocking relief with his horrifying account of the genocidal effects of U.S. aerial bombardment in Iraq:
Typically, the U.S. military claim was that
its bombing was pinpoint accurate. Nothing
could be further from the truth. 110,000
aerial sorties, 88,500 tons of bombs, the
equivalent of 7 1/2 Hiroshimas in 42 days,
and you can see the indiscriminate nature
of the bombing…probably killing 150,000,
maybe 200,000 people. And there’s no
question from the evidence of the bombing
that the United States deliberately planned
the destruction of the economic support
structures for the people of Iraq. You just
take water. They knocked out reservoir
dams, pumping stations for water
pipelines, filtration plants to purify the
water so you couldn’t drink it without
getting sick. For food, they systematically
attacked the food chain from one end of
the country to the other. They knocked out
electric power within hours. They knocked
out communications, repeatedly attacked
generator stations and telephone exchange
facilities. They knocked out transportation.
They showed that you could destroy a
country and deprive it of essential life
support systems without even setting foot
on it through cruise missiles and aerial
In fact, only 7.4 percent of the bombs dropped on Iraq were “smart”, hardly an apropos word, but one the military seems intent on using, probably due to the IQ level of most of its recruits. Roughly half of these so-called “smart” bombs missed their targets, and perhaps 70 percent of all bombs went off course. Estimates of the dead vary, but most investigators agree on a figure approaching 200,000 civilian deaths. The United States appears to have deliberately targeted oil wells, pumps, pipelines, refineries, storage tanks, and fuel delivery trucks, textile, automobile assembly plants and other factories, a baby formula plant, as well as factories for producing vaccines.27 Despite this scenario of gross overkill, George Bush Sr. is on public record for having nothing against the Iraqi people, stating, “My quarrel is not with the Iraqi people.” Thank God his quarrel is not with the Iraqi people, otherwise the genocide might be absolute.
To return to the bogeyman on the FBI’s most wanted list, Osama bin Laden is a former CIA agent like Saddam Hussein and Manual Noriega before him. And like Dr. Frankenstein’s previous monsters, the Bush and bin Laden families have established business ties. In fact, it was revealed after September 11, that the Bush’s and bin Laden’s both have large investment portfolios in the Carlyle Group, the world’s largest investment firm specializing in buyouts of aeronautics and defense companies. The Carlyle Group has been nicknamed “the ex-president’s club” with Former President Bush Sr. presently serving on its Asia advisory board. Other club members include Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, Former Defense Secretary and Former Deputy Director of the CIA Frank Carlucci, an Italian-American with probable links to the Mafia, Former British Prime Minister John Major, Former President of the Philippines Fidel Ramos.28 Frank Carlucci just happens to be the college roommate of the current Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. This incestuous club apparently likes to keep it in the family. Club members also include George Soros and Fred Malek, George Bush’s former campaign manager, forced to resign when it was revealed he had been Richard Nixon’s “Jew counter”.29 Due to its investments in Carlyle, the bin Laden family has become friendly with some of the biggest names in the Republican Party. In fact, Former president Bush Sr., Former Secretary of State James Baker, and Former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci have all made pilgrimages to the bin Laden family home in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.30
The conflict of interests involving these club members is staggering. Based on the group’s traditional investment in the defense and aerospace industries and given its roster of former national security mandarins, the Carlyle Group is uniquely positioned to profit tremendously off the current “war on terrorism”. It would not be overstating the case to say that the current Bush administration is actively pursuing an interminable war on terror because war is the biggest business in America, a business he stands to personally profit from. Another shocking revelation is that Carlyle has a Canadian advisory board including several former Canadian provincial premiers and industrialists. Even more worrying is the fact that since June of 2002 every Canadian came to have a stake in the Carlyle Group. That’s when the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board committed itself to investing $60 million U.S. into a Carlyle Group venture fund over a period of five years. The board will invest Canadians’ accumulated pension contributions. Another striking conflict of interest is the fact George Bush Sr. is on the payroll of Carlyle Group-asset United Defense Incorporated, the U.S. army’s fifth largest contractor and builder of armored vehicles, artillery, defense electronics and naval guns used on destroyers. Director of the Center for Public Policy Charles Lewis is most alarmed by the conflict of interests, stating, “It’s the first time the president of the United States’ father is on the payroll of the largest U.S. defense contractor.” Carlyle bought United Defense in 1997. Following the September 11 attacks, Carlyle put United Defense stocks up for sale in response to the market’s scramble for defense stock options. Carlyle raised $237 million in a single day from the sale of United Defense stocks.31
The revelation that the Saudi Binladen Group are among the companies investors is the most striking conflict of interest of all precisely because the bin Laden family is now poised to profit off the war against its own son. According to a Carlyle Group executive, the bin Laden family invested $2 million through a London-based investment firm in 1995 into what was called Carlyle Partners II Fund, which raised $1.3 billion overall. The family has received $1.3 million in completed investments and should reap a 40% annualized rate of return. But a foreign financier with ties to the bin Laden’s says the family’s overall investment in Carlyle is considerable larger. He called the $2 million merely an initial investment deposit. It’s like plowing a field,” he is quoted as saying. “You seed it once. You plow it, and then you reseed it again.”32 Even more amazing is the fact that relations between black sheep Osama and the rest of the clan were ostensibly severed, if it can be believed on October 26, 2001, meaning that Osama was in a position quite absurdly to profit from the war against himself up until that date.33 The reality is, however, that Osama directed the Saudi Binladen Group in completing at least two projects for the CIA, one in the 1980s and one in the 1990s, building facilities to be used by terrorists. In addition, the only evidence we have that Osama bin Laden ever severed ties with his family are statements made by Osama himself, his family, and U.S. government officials, all of whom have a vested interest in convincing the public that the connection between alleged black sheep Osama and his family have been severed. According to a CIA report issued in 1996, Riyadh is said to have revoked bin Laden’s Saudi citizenship for behavior that “contradicts the Kingdom’s interests and risks harming its relations with fraternal countries.” The move led to bin Laden forming the Advisory and Reformation Committee, a London-based dissident organization that by July of 1995 disseminated a total of 350 pamphlets critical of the Saudi government. Then in March 1994 Osama’s eldest brother, Bakr bin Laden, would express through the Saudi media his family’s “regret, denunciation, and condemnation” of bin Laden’s extremist activities.34 While the actions and statements of Saudi officials, bin Laden family members, the CIA and others appear to be authentic, what if it all a ruse, a charade staged for the public to make it appear that ties been Osama and his country and family have been estranged, while covertly they are mutually serving each other’s interests? The statements of felons and criminals are of scant value even if they do occupy some of the highest positions in their respective lands.35
It was even revealed in a BBC Newsnight special report that only days after the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York, eleven members of the bin Laden family were suddenly whisked out if the country on a chartered flight to Saudi Arabia. This did not alarm the White House in the least, who regards the bin Laden family as being above suspicion with the exception of black sheep Osama. Given the Bush and bin Laden family business partnership, it only makes sense that the Bush administration would seek to protect the bin Laden family. The Bush-bin Laden family business relationship also explains why the FBI’s investigation of Abdullah bin Laden case number 199-WF-213589 was obstructed. 9 stands for murder, 65 stands for espionage, and 199 is code for national security. “WF” refers to the Washington Field Office, who were investigating ABL (Abdullah bin Laden) the president of the World Army of Muslim Youth WAMY. The Washington Field Office were investigating Abdulah bin Laden concerning his connections with WAMY, a suspected terrorist organization. The FBI did investigate Abdullah bin Laden and WAMY, but for some reason were pulled off the case. The U.S. Treasury Department has not acted to freeze WAMY’s assets in line with new legislation enacted after 9-11 requiring that the bank accounts of suspected terrorist organizations be frozen. Insanely, the U.S. Treasury Department insists WAMY is a charity. Yet only weeks ago, Pakistan expelled some WAMY operatives and India linked WAMY to sponsoring bombing attacks in Kashmir. The Philippines accuses WAMY of funding Muslim insurgency movements in the archipelago. Even the FBI investigation into the World Trade Center bombing attack in 1993 has faced obstruction in terms of investigating Saudi connections. One Saudi diplomat defected to the United States with a total of 14,000 documents implicating Saudi citizens in terrorism. Former U.S. attorney Whyle tried handing the documents over to the FBI, but the agents refused to accept them, informing Whyle that they had been told to see no evil. The FBI field officers wanted the documents, but were told to turn a blind eye by supervisors who are controlled by a different agenda not based on prosecuting criminal behavior but on aiding and abetting it.36
As revealed by Noam Chomsky and other researchers, National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, according to his own admission, proffered and won secret support for Majuhidin fighting against the government of Afghanistan in an attempt to draw the Soviets into what he himself has referred to as the “Afghan trap”. The United States and its allies assembled a mercenary army 100,000 strong, drawn from the most militant radical Islamists they could find, mostly from Afghanistan. Bin Laden is believed to have joined this network in the 1980s.37 Not only is the United States responsible for precipitating two decades of conflict in Afghanistan, but did so in an even more cynical preemptive move designed to immerse the Soviet Union in a conflict he said would “give them their Vietnam.” This was the biggest CIA operation ever. The CIA spent a total of $3.5 billion with billions more added to the pot by U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia. In fact, the U.S. government and intelligence network knowingly funded, armed, and trained a terrorist network whose ideology consisted of virtually enslaving women, namely the mujaheddin.38 The aim was to keep the Soviets so tied down in Afghanistan, they would be unable to look for strategic advantages in other places. Pakistan and other neighboring states supported this move of the Americans since keeping the Soviets tied down in Afghanistan would safeguard their own national security. Additionally, the State Department announced it would establish diplomatic ties with the Taliban immediately after their capture of Kabul on September 26th 1996, this despite the savagery shown by the new regime toward ex-President Najibullah and his brother, who were attacked in the UN compound, where they were beaten senseless, castrated, and dragged to death behind a jeep, after which their bodies were hung from a lamppost, a wonderful portent of the social justice they would later administer. There was nothing objectionable to the Taliban-led coup said the U.S. State Department to the Taliban’s intention to establish a fundamentalist Islamic government in Afghanistan. In fact, for American politicians and journalists, who had leant their support to the Central Asian Oil Pipeline Project, in which the oil company Unocal was heavily involved, said the Taliban were most welcome, some even stating that the arrival of the Taliban would bring peace and stability to the region.39
The Afghani war never received much play in the years preceding the September 11 attacks of 2001. Stories of the civil war there never received much airplay, and the conflicts between the Taliban and Northern Alliance were always covered in the patronizing tone of “they have been killing each other for eons”, in an attempt by America in the personage of Pontius Pilate a chance to wash its hands of the affair. In the Middle East, it is well known that America armed all factions, especially those most militantly opposed to communism covertly supplying them with weapons, ammunition and training. Nor are the governments of the Middle East oblivious to the fact that the United States is responsible for creating the very international Islamic fundamentalist movement it now seeks to eradicate with its war on terrorism.40 Most of the arms sales were done secretly with the CIA supplying non-U.S. made arms quite by design so that their machinations in the conflict could never be traced or verified. Traditionally, the CIA made it a habit to purchase foreign, usually Soviet-style weaponry in an attempt to absolve itself of any involvement. Throughout the Afghani war, the CIA purchased Soviet-type weapons from Egypt, China, and elsewhere and sent them to the training camps in Pakistan. Cables show that Chinese and Egyptian AK-47 rifles and SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles arrived in Pakistan as early as 1980.41
U.S. policy toward Afghanistan was always portrayed as an attempt to prevent “excessive Soviet influence”. The aim was mainly to prevent the Soviet Union from obtaining a foothold in Afghanistan from whence it could launch aggressive actions in the region. While the importance of Afghanistan was downplayed, the region around it, the Persian Gulf and the sea lines and ports of the Indian Ocean was deemed to be of significant value. Then U.S. policy parlance took an about face in 1979. The Shah of Iran was ousted and the anti-American, pro-Islamic government of Ayatollah Khomeini took power. Just ten months later, the Soviet Union would deploy 100,000 troops to Afghanistan, putting the Red Army in striking distance of Pakistan and Iran. Soviet policy was considered the greatest security threat to the United States at this time. This gave National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski the excuse he needed to launch the initiative that became known as the “Afghan trap”. Brzezinski warned President Carter that the Soviets had sent hundreds of advisors to Afghanistan to assist in reforms and counterinsurgency operations. He was concerned that the Soviets might use Afghanistan for a launching pad into neighboring countries, particularly Pakistan and Iran, which had traditionally been U.S. allies. Brzezinski pushed the proposal through the Special Coordination Committee of the National Security Council to be as he put it, “more sympathetic to those Afghans who were determined to preserve their country’s independence.” Freedom of Information Act requests for records of meetings held between CIA and State Department officials and Afghan rebel leaders have been denied, but documents seized by Iranian students during the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979 reveal that as early as April 1979, exactly 8 months before the Soviet intervention and immediately following on the heels of Brzezinski’s SCC decision, U.S. officials are on record as having met with Afghan rebel leaders.42
What is abundantly clear from all this is that the United States, having found pretexts for previous invasions, has found even greater pretext for military invasion in the manhunt for bin Laden. Indeed, the groundwork for the U.S. military invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 seems to have been laid in advance by top-ranking U.S. government officials with vested interests. For example, in a trigger happy response to the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998, Former President Clinton issues Executive Order 13099 on August 20, 1998, an order presented under the title, Prohibiting Transactions With Terrorists Who Threaten To Disrupt the Middle East Peace Process. Osama bin Laden and what is referred to as the Islamic Army, under which Al-Qaida appears as a subgroup are among the direct targets of the prohibition order.43 President Clinton would unashamedly and unabashedly launch retaliatory strikes against the Sudan and Afghanistan that same day. Anyone who fails to see political and military opportunism in such a cynical document being released on the same day as a revenge attack against alleged terrorist targets in the Middle East is too naive to recognize the true nature of the American military-industrial beast.
Former President Clinton would follow this with Executive Order 13129 of July 1999. With the issuance of this order, the foundation has already been laid for the invasion that would take place the following year with this document. Not only are direct references to Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qiada organization made in the document, but the actions and policies of the Taliban government for harboring and offering a safe haven to these terrorists is condemned as a national security threat to the United States and even declares it a national emergency:
I, William J. Clinton, President of the United
States of America, find that the actions and
policies of the Taliban of Afghanistan, in
allowing territory under its control in
Afghanistan to be used as a safe haven and
base of operations for Usama bin Ladin
and the Al-Qaida organization who have
committed and threaten to continue to
commit acts of violence against the
United States and its nationals, constitute
an unusual and extraordinary threat to the
national security and foreign policy of the
United States, and hereby declare a national
emergency to deal with that threat.44
What is ironic to the extreme is that the same terrorists Former President Clinton would target with this executive order were recruited, funded and trained by the CIA in its own camps as part of a problem-reaction-solution schema to advance the New World Order. Once having unleashed their leviathan of terror upon American interests, America would be justified in launching an invasion into any country in which they were holed up, precisely by design. As was revealed on Gregory Palast’s BBC Newnight Special Report, Osama bin Laden was rounding up Saudi Nationals to be trained by the CIA in the United States. Michael Springmann, head of the American consulate in Jiddah, was ordered by a high-ranking member of the State Department to issue visas to people he considered unqualified for visa issuance. What Springmann discovered was that Osama bin Laden was rounding up personnel to be trained by the CIA in camps similar to the School of the Americas, only to be returned to camps in the Middle East to engage in terrorist activities, all while George Bush Sr., former Director of the CIA, was in office.45 “My job was supplying visas to terrorists,” Springmann states bluntly. During his time at the consulate, he would issue visas to those whom the CIA and Osama bin Laden would recruit together, first for training in the U.S., then to go to war in Afghanistan against the Soviets.46
As revealed by BBC News in an article appearing on September 18th, 2001, America had revealed plans to go to war with Afghanistan several months in advance of the September 11th attacks. Mr. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan was planned for October of 2001. Mr. Naik said that he was informed of these plans at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan held in Berlin. For Afghanistan to avoid invasion, Mr. Naik was told, Osama bin Laden would have to be handed over without delay. The wider objective, according to Mr. Naik, was to replace the Taliban regime with a moderate government. Mr. Naik was also informed that the invasion was slated for mid-October before the first snows started falling, an itinerary pretty much right on schedule with the actual invasion.47 Meanwhile, authors Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie claimed that the Bush administration was in negotiations with the Taliban over construction of an oil pipeline in Afghanistan in the summer of 2001, for which the Taliban were demanding political recognition and economic aid in exchange. When the negotiations broke down in August of 2001, a U.S. official is quoted as threatening, “Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”48
In proportion to the infinitude of the interminable war Washington plans to launch against the worldwide terrorist network it has helped to spawn is the interminable nature of the Al Qaeda terrorist network itself, a shadowy organization that has become practically invincible. David Long, a specialist on terrorism and the Near East, says that the international web of intrigue woven by the spider Osama bin Laden is a web that has spun utterly out of control:
This is not an organization of terrorists
in the traditional sense. It is more like
a gathering place for diverse subgroups
to obtain financing, support, and
military training. It’s a chameleon, an
amoeba that constantly changes form and
color but has only one leader: Osama bin
There is no question that having created the terrorist monster Osama bin Laden, Dr. Frankenstein in his incarnation as the CIA experienced what is referred to as “blow back” in the intelligence community on September 11th. As Noam Chomsky maintains in 9-11, the perpetrators of the horrendous crimes of September 11th were drawn from the terrorist network that has its roots in the guerrilla armies organized, trained and armed by the CIA, with the aid of Egypt, Pakistan, French intelligence, along with Saudi Arabian funding.50
While many complain that the Al Qaeda, Mujahideen and other groups invite a Western crusade because they target secular or moderate Middle Eastern governments, the West, particularly America, is equally engaged in a practice of trying to replace Islamic fundamentalist regimes with so-called moderate governments that comply with the mainly American policy agenda. In short, both sides are playing the same escalating game of one-upmanship in the region. In the case of Osama bin Laden and the terrorist organization he runs, he has been influenced by Sayyid Qutb, an influential fundamentalist thinker and revolutionary arrested by Egypt’s Nassar regime and executed in 1966. His writings, which survive and pose a significant threat to the secular, ‘moderate’ governments of the Middle and Near East, have been profoundly influential in the Islamic Jihad movement. His most well known contribution to the Islamic ‘Holy War’ was the concept of takfir. A kafir to an Islamic fundamentalist is an infidel or unbeliever, and to declare a takfir is to ascertain who the ‘unbeliever’ is. But Sayyid Qutb was not referring to the non-Muslim infidel. He was referring to fellow Muslims who promoted secular or non-Muslim beliefs. Thus, a Muslim society like Egypt or Turkey could be regarded as a corrupt infidel society if it fails to follow the dictates of Islamic law.51 The truth is, however, that most Middle Eastern anti-American sentiment is a direct result of America’s policy toward the Middle East. Much of the Arab world holds America responsible for the imposition of regimes considered ‘moderate’ to the West but highly oppressive to the Middle East. It is unlikely that the Jordanian, Egyptian, Kuwaiti, Bahraini, Tunisian, Moroccan, or for that matter, Iranian or Iraqi regimes would have been able to survive till now without U.S. military, intelligence, and political support. The people of the Arab world know well that U.S. support for a given regime is based largely on economic and military considerations, and that this pursuit of political expedience is fundamentally at odds with democratization and human rights.52 Neither side can be said to be walking the high moral ground. In this sense, they are both employing the same strategy, largely because the same controlling elite has been responsible for establishing, funding, and supporting both sides as part of a problem-reaction-solution schema to advance the New World Order.
What is clear is that, in the opinion of Islamic fundamentalists, power in the Arab world comes directly from and depends on complete surrender to Islam and Islamic law. This belief is nicely summed up in this popular and oft quoted Sufi proverb:
Islam, the ruler, and the people are like
the tent, the pole, the ropes and the
pegs. The tent is Islam, the pole is the
ruler, the ropes and pegs are the
people. None can thrive without the
Muslims in the Arab world have an inherent distrust of foreigners and outsiders with good reason. They are convinced that their loss of power and vulnerability is largely due to foreign influence. Arabs traditionally blamed their fall from grace on the Turks. Turks, on the contrary, blame their stagnation at the beginning of the 20th century on the oppressive weight of Islamic tradition and law, which prevented them from attaining the same level of progress as the secular governments of the West. Persians could blame the departure of their glory days on Arab, Turk, and Mongolian invaders. The period of French and British imperialism is also cited as a major reason for the decline of Arab influence in the world. Now, deservedly so in many respects, America has become the scapegoat for the decline in Arab fortunes.54 But the Islamic followers of the Arab world are not going to remain resigned and servile in the face of U.S. aggression and interference in their domestic affairs for long. They will become increasingly united under the rubric of Islam and seek safety and solace in its protection, will become increasingly orthodox and fundamentalist in perspective, anti-Western, anti-American, anti-secular and anything else that smacks of Westernization and the conflict is certain to escalate as a result, indeed already has, to the point of hostility reached during the Crusades.
America, however, will continue to pursue the path of empire around the world, which is not to suggest that America is an empire, but that it has in nearly every respect the appearance of one. While some researchers have portrayed America as an empire, this is erroneous and misleading. The United States of America is not an empire so much as it the headquarters of the New World Order. The New World Order is not in fact new, but is an agenda several centuries old to mete out the aims and ambitions of an elite order or council founded as early as the 13th century, but whose ultimate agenda most likely antedates that by millennia. To understand what is meant by the New World Order, we must begin by examining the Great Seal of the United States, appearing, among other places, on the reverse side of the American dollar bill. Here we find a truncated pyramid with the missing capstone containing the All-Seeing Eye of the Egyptian god Horus peering through a triangle, which on one level represents the missing capstone of the Great Pyramid at Giza. Around this emblem appears the Latin inscription, Annuit Coeuptus Novus Ordo Seclorum, which means, “Announcing the Birth of a New Order of Ages.”55 It should be clear then that a New World Order that conceived its inception in the founding of a state in 1776 must have a considerably longer history that antedates the founding of the new republic. “The New World Order” or “The Great Work of Ages,” as it is sometimes called, is very old indeed, dating to at least the 13th century and probably before.56 Some of the secret societies that have had a hand in nurturing its development are the fraternities known as the Priory of Sion, the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, Ordo Templi Orientis, the Knights of Malta, the Black Nobility, the Freemasons, and the Rosicrucians.
One must not underestimate the power these secret societies have exerted over the course of history. As early as the 13th century, an order of knights was founded called the Knights of the Temple or The Poor Knights of Christ. Their job was ostensibly to guard Christian pilgrims on the highway to Jerusalem. In reality, however, they were undertaking a secret excavation of Temple Mount in Jerusalem on the sacred site of King Solomon’s Temple. Their discoveries are believed to have been dramatic and are believed to have been the source of the great flowering in cathedral architecture that took place at this time, the early 1100s.57 It is also believed that they found secrets pertaining to sacred geometry and the king-making rites of ancient Egypt preserved by the Essene community, which they have incorporated into their own initiation rites.58 The York Scottish Rite of Freemasonry descends from the Knights Templar. A king-making organization whose high initiates become ‘kings’, Freemasonry sees to it that its high initiates are then placed at the head of various fields of society transnationally to become multinational corporate heads, international financiers, oil magnates, top military brass, political pundits, etc. Through this modus operandi the Freemasons wield near absolute control as the largest and most powerful crime syndicate in the world.59
As early as the 13th century, the Templar Knights controlled a transnational empire with landholdings stretching from the British Isles all the way to the Holy Land. Their practice, one that they have followed for centuries, was to lend gold to monarchs to fight their military campaigns and to collect interest on that gold. Thus, as early as the 13th century, a primitive form of chartered bank had been founded in the form of the Templar Preceptory, where gold could be procured at a premium by kings anxious to seek funding for their military campaigns. In essence, the lending of gold and money has always been something of a con game or confidence trick to exact influence and control over others through financial transactions. The Templars only ever had a fraction of the gold they were lending out much like banks today are able to lend out ten times the amount of money they have on supply, a practice referred to as “fractional reserve lending”. In essence, the Templars, like the largely Freemason-controlled banks of today, were able to charge interest on air, gold that did not really exist, insisting that, if the interest was not paid by the debtor, they could seize his collateral, which in the case of the European monarchs would have been large landholdings. It was precisely this fate that befell the father of Philip the IV of France, a king so saddled in debt that he left his son the heir of a bankrupted kingdom. It is precisely this that prompted Philip the IV to exact revenge on the Templars by prevailing on the Pope to enact a decree that would effectively dissolve them as an order, an edict that would grant the kings of Europe a license to defang the Templars, seize their lands and properties and make off with their gold.60 This date that would live in infamy was Friday October 13th 1307, which explains the later superstition concerning Friday the 13th, which came to be regarded as an inauspicious or ill-omened day.61
The Grand Master of the Templars, Jacques de Molay, was arrested along with hundreds of his supporters, but some Templars, having received advance warning, managed to escape from the French port of La Rochelle, from whence their armada headed south to Portugal, where they founded the Knights of Christ, and north to Scotland, where they founded the York Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. The Templar battle flag so often associated with pirates was the Skull and Cross Bones on a black background, a flag that in fact commemorated the Third Degree of initiation associated with both the Knights Templar and their later incarnation as the York Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. “They gave him the Third Degree” is an expression commonly used in English to refer to someone who has been put through a rigorous interrogation or ordeal, owing to the fact that, it was in the Third Degree of Freemasonry, that one faced one’s own death ritualistically by gazing upon one’s own black burial shroud with the skull and crossed bones inlaid. Thus, the so-called pirate flag associated with piracy, was in fact the battle flag of the Templars, whose armada of ships was attacking ships under royal charter in order to steal back much of the wealth that had been stolen from them by the monarchs of Europe in 1307.
The Templars had already established the legal institutions of the British Isles centered in Temple Bar in the City of London, named after the Knights of the ‘Temple’, which referred to Solomon’s Temple. We can also see that the word ‘bar’ in ‘Bar Exam’ derives from the name Temple Bar. Mahatma Gandhi himself attended the Inner Temple of Temple Bar during his studies to obtain a law degree in London.62 Even the university degree system with the three degrees of Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy are based on the first three degrees of Freemasonry: Entered Apprentice, Novice and Master Mason. This being the history of the London legal district, it is only natural that the Freemasons would inherit control of the British legal institutions, as they would the police force as symbolized by the black and white checkered squares appearing in the police badges, logos and even on the police caps of the various police forces of former British colonies, the same black and white squares that appear on the floor of every Masonic Temple and which symbolize their absolute control over the light and dark forces, a motif that suggests they exert near absolute control over the institutions of our nations.
However, their control does not end there. The Freemasons also control the London financial district and the New York financial district, one very good reason for why many banks in the developed world resemble Masonic Temples. In fact, the World Trade Center twin towers represent the Twin Pillars of a Masonic Temple, Joachin and Boaz, meaning strength and foundation. The World Trade Center Twin Towers also boasted designs resembling the archways and vaulted ceilings of the gothic cathedrals the Templars had built so many years before.63 It is no exaggeration therefore, to say that, when one passes through the Twin Pillars of the World Trade Center, one is entering what is in essence a Masonic Temple.
All of this leads to the fact that the United States of America and its cousin to the north, Canada, were founded as Templar-Freemason states, and are in essence New World Order experiments. In fact, as the headquarters of the New World Order, as announced on the Great Seal of the United States, the American constitution was a dream come true for the fraternity. According to Freemasonic historian Manly P. Hall, of the fifty-six men who ratified and signed the Declaration of Independence by a body all but six of the signatories were known Freemasons, while only one is known not to be.64 To further substantiate the thesis that the United States of America and Canada were Templar-Freemason New World Order experiments, the financial and business capital of the new republic was called ‘New York’ named after “The York Scottish Rite of Freemasonry”, while the financial, business and political capital of British North America was also called York, later changing its name to Toronto, while the political capital moved east to Ottawa. Everything down to the street plan of Washington D.C., with the science of sacred geometry it displays, was the work of Freemason high initiates George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.65 Even the stars and Stripes is a disguised version of the Illuminati logo of the rays of the illuminati being emitted from the All-Seeing Eye of the Egyptian god Horus. The same motif is reflected in the design of the Great Seal of the United States. The flag designer later straightened the rays of the Illuminati out to disguise the origins of the motif. The rays of the Illuminati can be seen in the logos of other departments and organizations of the U.S. government, i.e. the Department of the Navy, the Department of Social Security, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, etc. The same motif shows up in the logos of the secret societies connected with the fraternities that founded the United States, namely the Ordo Templi Orientis, the Rosicrucian Order, etc. Let us not forget that the Union Jack, the Stars and Stripes and the Canadian Maple Leaf flags were all originally red, white and blue, classic Freemasonry colors. In fact, the original Canadian flag depicted a red maple leaf on a white background with blue borders representing from sea to shining sea. The flag was later changed to a red banner border by Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker. Even the UN logo contains classic Freemasonry symbolism, particularly the olive branches and the globe divided into 33 longitudinal and latitudinal degrees representing the thirty-three degrees of Freemasonry. In fact the science of dividing the globe up into longitudinal and latitudinal degrees was itself a science no doubt devised by Templar seafaring empire-builders intent upon traversing the globe to extend their transnational empire.
America’s ambitions in the Middle East are indisputably motivated by a desire for conquest and imperial expansion, especially if we examine the founding dates of the United States. The Declaration of Independence was ratified and signed on the respective dates of July 2nd and 4th 1776. The significance of these dates is that they correspond to the key dates July 2nd and 4th of 1187, when the Crusading armies of the Knights Templar suffered a defeat at the hands of the Muslim leader Saladin’s army. Cut off from their supplies, the Templars were routed on July 2nd and were completely wiped out as a force on July 4th, 1187. The dates of the ratification and signing of America’s Declaration of Independence by its largely freemason fraternity of signatories indicates that America’s manifest destiny, implicit in its founding charter, is to gain ascendancy over the Muslim world to which the founding dates of the charter so dramatically point. This history and its significance has been brought to the world’s attention by Richard C. Hoagland, former science advisor to Walter Cronkite and CBS News. The fact that America is commemorating its defeat by a Muslim army during the so-called Holy Wars in its founding Declaration in 1776 means that exacting revenge on and gaining ascendancy over the Middle East and the entire Muslim world is one of the principle agendas of the United States of America, the headquarters of the New World Order.66
1. Rahul Mahajan, The New Crusade: America’s War on Terrorism, New York: Monthly Review Press, 2001, p. 101.
2. Noam Chomsky, 9-11, New Delhi: Najraj Publishers, 2002, p.40.
3. The New Crusade: America’s War on Terrorism, p.55, 56.
4. David Icke, And the Truth Shall Set You Free, Cambridge: Bridge of Love Publications, 1996, p.404, 405.
5. Rick Rozoff, “U.S. Military Pushes into Ex-Soviet Georgia Under Guise of Fighting Terror,” from http://emperors-clothes.com.
6. Andrew Marr, “Blair Steps Forward”, in The BBC Reports on America, Its Allies and Enemies, and the Counterattack on Terrorism, New York: The Overlook Press, 2002, p.178.
7. Kenneth Katzman (Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division), “Terrorism: Near Eastern Groups and State Sponsors”, Report for Congress, from National Security Archives, George Washington University, http://www.gwu.edu/nsarchiv.
8. David Icke, The Biggest Secret, Scottsdale, Arizona: Bridge of Love Publications USA, 1999, p.364.
9. The New Crusade, p.30, 31.
10. Hidden Wars of Desert Storm, by Audrey Brohy and Gerard Ungerman, Narrated by John Hurt.
12. The New Crusade, p.121.
13. Ibid., p.139.
14. Russel S. Bowen, The Immaculate Deception: The Bush Crime Family Exposed, Carson City: American West publishers, 1991, p.162-164.
15. The Panama Deception, An Empowerment Project Production, Directed by Barbara Trent, Santa Monica: Rhino Home Video, 1992.
16. The Immaculate Deception, p.166.
17. The Panama Deception.
19. Chomsky, 9-11, p.36.
20. Ibid., p.37.
21. The Panama Deception.
24. The New Crusade, p.101.
25. Chomsky, On Miseducation, ed. Donaldo Macedo, New York: Rowman &Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000, p.32.
26. Hidden Wars of Desert Storm.
27. The New Crusade, p.105.
28. Steven Staples, “Canada’s link to the little-known world of the Carlyle Group,” in The Toronto Star, July 18th, 2002.
29. Alice Charbonnier, “Republican-controlled Carlyle Group Poses Serious Ethical Questions for Bush Presidents but Baltimore Sun Ignores It,” in The Baltimore Chronicle, Oct. 3, 2001.
30. Jared Israel, “BushLaden” from http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm, Oct. 8, 2001.
31. “Canada’s link to little-known world of the Carlyle Group,” in The Toronto Star.
32. Jared Israel, “BushLaden”.
33. “Canada’s link to little known world of the Carlyle Group”.
34. “Usama bin Ladin: Islamic Extremist Financier” (CIA Declassified Report), 1996, from National Security Archives, George Washington University, http://www.gwu.edu/nsarchiv.
35. Jared Israel, “BushLaden”.
36. Gred Palast, BBC Newsnight Special Report, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/attack22.ram.
37. Noam Chomsky, 9-11, p.82.
38. The New Crusade, p.110.
39. John Simpson, “Afghanistan’s Tragedy” in The BBC Reports on America, Its Allies and Enemies, and the Counterattack on Terrorism, New York: The Overlook Press, 2002, pp.111, 112.
40. As ‘ad AbuKhalil, “Bin Laden, Islam and America’s New War on Terrorism”, New York: Seven Stories Press, 2002, p.43.
41. Steve Galster, “Afghanistan: Lesson from the Last War, Afghanistan: The Making of U.S. Policy, 1973-1990”, from National Security Archives, George Washington University, http://www.gwu.edu/nsarchiv, Oct. 9, 2001.
43. Ex-U.S. President William J. Clinton, Executive Order 13099 of August 20, 1998, from National Security Archives, George Washington University, http://www.gwu.edu/nsarchiv.
44. Ex-President William J. Clinton, Executive Order 13129 of July 4, 1999, from National Security Archives, George Washington University, http://www.gwu.edu/nsarchiv.
45. Gregory Palest, BBC Newsnight Special Report, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/attack22.ram.
46. Der Spiegel, Inside 9-11: What Really Happened, by Reporters, Writers and Editors of Der Spiegal Magazine, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2002, p.20.
47. George Arney, “US ‘planned attack on Taleban”, in BBC News, Sept. 18, 2001, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hienglish/world/south_asia/newsaid_1550000/1550366.stm.
48. The New Crusade, p.33.
49. Inside 9-11: What Really Happened, p.174, 175.
50. Chomsky, 9-11, p.82.
51. Bin Laden, Islam, and America’s New ‘War on Terrorism’, p.71.
52. Ibid., p.89.
53. Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, p.101.
54. Ibid., pp. 152, 153.
55. David Icke, And the Truth Shall Set You Free,
56. Ibid., p.37.
57. Graham Hancock, The Sign and the Seal, London: Mandarin Paperbacks, 1992, p.100, 101.
58. Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, The Hiram Key, London: Arrow Books Ltd., 1997, p.356.
59. David Icke, And the Truth Shall Set You Free, p.28.
60. Ibid., p.40.
61. Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, The Temple and the Lodge, London: Jonathan Cape, 1989, p.84.
62. Mahatma Gandhi, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (e-book in 100 volumes), New Delhi: Publications Division.
63. Richard C. Hoagland, “Who’s the Enemy: ‘End of Days’ Begun?” from www.enterprisemission.com.
64. And the Truth Shall Set You Free, p.36.
65. The Temple and the Lodge, 349, 350.
66. “Who’s the Enemy: ‘End of Days’ Begun?”
AbuKhalil, As ’ad. Bin Laden, Islam and America’s New ‘War on Terrorism’. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2002.
Arney, George. US ‘planned attack on Taleban’, BBC News, Sept. 18, 2001, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsaid_1550000/1550366.stm
Baigent, Michael and Leigh, Richard. The Temple and the Lodge, London: Jonathan Cape, 1989.
Bowen, Russel, The Immaculate Deception: The Bush Crime Family Exposed. Carson City: American West Publishers, 1991.
Brohy, Audrey and Ungerman, Gerard (Directors). Hidden Wars of Desert Storm. Narrated by John Hurt.
Charbonnier, Alice. Republican-controlled Carlyle Group Poses Serious Ethical Questions for Bush Presidents, but Baltimore Sun Ignores It, The Baltimore Chronicle, Oct. 3, 2001.
Chomsky, Noam. 9-11. New Delhi: Najraj Publishers, 2002.
Chomsky, Noam. On Miseducation. Ed. Donaldo Macedo. New York: Roman and Littlefield Publishers, 2000.
CIA Report: “Usama bin Ladin: Islamic Extremist Financier”, 1996, from National Security Archives, George Washington University, http://www.gwu.edu/nsarchiv.
Clinton, William J. Ex-U.S. President. Executive Order 13099 of August 20, 1998, from National Security Archives, George Washington University, http://www.gwu.edu/nsarchiv.
Clinton, William J. Ex-U.S. President. Executive Order 13129 of July 4, 1999, from National Security Archives, George Washington University, http://www.gwu.edu/nsarchiv.
Der Spiegel. Inside 9-11: What Really Happened. Reporters, Writers, and Editors of Der Spiegel Magazine. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2001.
Galster, Steven. “Afghanistan Lessons from the Last War, Afghanistan: The Making of U.S. Policy, 1973-1990, Oct. 9, 2001.
Gandhi, Mahatma. “Confession”. In The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (e-book in 100 volumes). New Delhi: Publications Division.
Hancock, Graham. The Sign and the Seal. London: Mandarin Paperbacks, 1992.
Hoagland, Richard C. Who’s the Enemy: ‘End of Days’ Begun? From www.enterprisemission.com, 2001.
Icke, David. And the Truth Shall Set You Free. Cambridge: Papworth Press, 1988.
Icke, David. The Biggest Secret. Scottsdale, Arizona: Bridge of Love Publications USA, 1999.
Israel, Jared. “BushLaden”, from http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm, Oct. 8, 2001.
Katzman, Kenneth. “Terrorism: Near Eastern Groups and State Sponsors, 2001”. Report for Congress, from National Security Archives, George Washington University, http://www.gwu.edu/nsarchiv, Sept. 10, 2001.
Knight, Christopher and Lomas, Robert. The Hiram Key. London: Arrow Books Ltd., 1997.
Lewis, Bernard, What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Mahajan, Rahul. The New Crusade: America’s War on Terrorism. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2002.
Marr, Andrew. “Blair Steps Forward”. In The BBC Reports on America, Its Allies and Enemies, and the Counterattack on Terrorism. New York: The Overlook Press, 2002.
Palast, Gregory. BBC Newsnight Special Report, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/attack22.ram
Simpson, John. “Afghanistan’s Tragedy”. In The BBC Reports on America, Its Allies, and the Counterattack on Terrorism. New York: The Overlook Press, 2002.
Staples, Steven. “Canada’s link to little-known world of the Carlyle Group”. In The Toronto Star, July 18, 2002.
The Panama Deception. An Empowerment Project Production. Directed by Barbara Trent. Santa Monica: Rhino Home Video.