This was posted in August 2006 and there have been changes in world politics since. The Bush Neo-Cons have lost gound. There has been an economic crash. There was the ‘Arab Spring’ and ‘militant Islam’ is invading black Africa. Perhaps, the most important change is the rise of elite opposition to the Neo-Cons. China and Russia are significant opposition and also dissent within the US and Western military-industrial-intelligence complex. This has slowed down the desired Iran war and following New World Order.
A personal analysis –
People around the world face two possible agendas resulting from events in Lebanon – one regional and the other global. Tony Blair’s speech suggests it is the worst one: war, economic collapse, other calamities followed by a one-world government ruled with feudal powers by a global elite.
Regional Agenda: Oil and The Lewis Plan
The grandfather of the regional agenda is former British spy, Foreign Office official and Princeton academic Bernard Lewis.
The `clash of civilisations’ was his idea. His perspective on the Middle East has been influential in academia and in political circles. He promoted the idea that Islam was a backward religion that produces terrorism. His solution was the Balkanisation of the region.
After the first Iraq war, in the influential `Foreign Affairs’ journal, he argued that Middle East states would and should degenerate into fratricidal, parochialist violence and chaos ethnic entities. This would mean that the only powerful local state would be Israel and with its US partner they would dominate oil production.
The elite did not want to be honest with its public instead this aim had to be marketed. They used a threat. This was done in the 1990s by political elites such as former Secretary of State, George P. Schultz, former CIA chief James Woolsey, former Iraqi administrator Paul Bremer and their Committee on the Present Danger. They claimed the West needed a World War IV (World War III was the Cold War) last would last for decades.
Their propaganda is that militant Islam wants a war against Judeo-Christian, liberal, democratic West. The West needed a war on terror against terrorists and `rogue states’ like Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Tunisia and North Korea but also Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Perhaps it is more than convenient for Al-Qaeda to then show up. The CIA and Saudi financing of bin Laden is well documented. The Muslim Brotherhood was used in the 1950s in an attempt to get rid of Egyptian nationalist, Nasser. When Nasser used violence to get rid of them, the CIA helped them to find a new home in Saudi Arabia. But the CIA claims that the current terror is all `blowback’.
One of the first plans for war on terror appeared in 1996, when the US’ Defense Policy Board delivered a policy document, `A Clean Break’ to Benjamin Netanyahu, new Israeli PM and leader of the right-wing party, Likud. It advocated dumping `land for peace’ compromises with Arabs to replace confronting enemies, regime change and securing economic independence.
This is what Condeleezza Rice really meant when she talked about death in Lebanon being the `birth pangs of a new Middle East’. Clearly, Iraq was the first war to bring this about and Israel is a tool to begin a bigger Middle Eastern conflagration.
Most of Tony Blair’s 1 August 2006 speech on a new Middle East policy fits into this, . Indeed, the public may warm to some aspects of his speech. He talks of “moderation”, tackling poverty, a two-state solution, winning hearts and minds. It leads people to believe that he thinks the military solution is not working. But given his position on the Lebanonese conflict, this is all spin.
What suggests Blair was speaking in code was his reference to `arc of extremism’. Meaningless for most people but the elite and their supporters will know it comes from `arc of the crisis’ by influential writer and former US National Security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinksi. For Brzezinksi, the arc was territory, the Eurasian landmass, from the Middle East to Pakistan, as one rich in resources, including oil. He says, the West should to get hold of it.
International Bankers: The Anglo-American Establishment
If it is code, then other parts of his speech suggests something else. Firstly, the speech also comes at a time when there is an increase in violence in Iraq and Afghanistan: there indeed is a crisis in the arc. Also, according to US press, Blair met Schultz at an elite club called Bohemian Grove. Many leading US and UK politicians and figures have taken part in the Grove jaunts. But conspiracy theorist who have gained access to the Grove state that it is Masonic and sinister in its mission.
The sinister mission centres around powerful, wealthy, criminal international bankers who can buy politicians and major companies. What they want is a feudalist global government that they will control and they will use global war and chaos to bring it about. Their plan has been set out by the late Professor Carroll Quigley, in his book `Tragedy and Hope’. Quigley’s insights are used in William F Engdhal’s `A Century of War’.
Quigley gained inside information about a group called the Anglo-American Establishment and revealed `too much’ about them. He revealed a hidden world of power, intrigue and conspiracy that most people would regard as malevolent. Most people would find its secrets unbelievable. In his book, he states: “The powers of financial capitalism had a far reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences.”
It started in the late 17th century with the Bank of England, the world’s first major, privately-controlled central bank. Until 1947, the UK bank notes were controlled and produced by this bank, a private company. It began because the King needed its money to finance a war and international bankers have been aligned to wars ever since. It took another turn in the 19th century with a body called the Rhodes-Milner Group set up by Cecil Rhodes’ millions. Through international bankers, this group secured a place in the US (Wall Street) and became the Anglo-American Establishment.
Grabbing other people’s resources was key. Racism and slavery helped to produce the UK’s banking system and the City of London was a major player in the criminal colonial enterprise. The UK’s black colonies were `Crown Colonies’ but some argue that it did not mean that the Monarch were responsible for them.
The `Crown’ referred to the people who controlled the semi-autonomous area called the `City of London’. The City could count on the British military to control the colonies and also do as much exploiting as they wanted. The Anglo-American Establishment’s imperial aspirations have not dimmed.
The key bankers include Rothschild Banks of London and Berlin, Lazard Brothers Bank of Paris, Warburg Batiks of Hamburg and Amsterdam, Lehman Brothers Bank of New York, Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York, Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (controlled by the Rockefellers), Goldman Sachs Bank of New York and JP Morgan. They run the Federal Reserve bank. Rockefeller is said to be worth $12 trillion while the Rothschild fortune has been estimated to be up to $400 trillion (Robert Gaylon Ross, `Who’s Who of the Elite’).
The Establishment’s major tools include privately-controlled central banks, the politicians they back, the Western intelligence agencies, Freemasons, Rhodes Scholars, thinks tanks and charities, the major oil and arms companies, the main Western media outlets, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group, the powerful Council on Foreign Relations in the US, its sister organisation the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the International Bank of Settlements, the IMF, the World Bank and the UN. It was the Council on Foreign Relations that created the UN. A key Establishment family, the Rockefellers, donated land for the UN. They want one world government with one currency that they will control because they control gold, oil, banks and the money supply of the most powerful nations.
Supporting the Rothchilds, the Rockefellers, et al can make you rich. Seriously oppose them and you can end up dead. The Rockefellers support Kissinger and Brezinski. It is claimed that President Jack Kennedy began to oppose the international bankers and he was assassinated. Indeed, most of the US Presidents who have been assassinated have opposed a privately controlled central bank. Most of the nations regarded by the US as rogue do not allow international bankers to control their central banks.
Many people think that US Vice-President, Dick Cheney is calling the shots in the Middle East. In reality, he is actually following a policy determined by George Shultz and it is Schultz who is representing the bankers. Schultz is on the board of Bechtel, the pharmaceutical company, Gilead, and the investment company Charles Schwartz Corporation. He is also on good terms with the Rothchilds.
Global Agenda: War And One World Government
When the aims and historical role of the Anglo-American establishment is understood, then the apparent psychotic behaviour of Israel and Blair’s code can be understood. So when he said “we are far from persuading those we need to persuade”, he means the public in the West and just not in the Middle East are unlikely to support their feudalist program any time soon.
He indicates that there will be a step change in the way the elite policy, plans and activity: “to change dramatically the focus of our policy…in the short term we are not winning”. It is not persuasion that he is talking about when he refers to those who will oppose the elite inside and outside the West but chaos and violence: “we must commit ourselves to a complete renaissance of our strategy to defeat those that threaten us”.
He says Hizbollah wants to create “chaos, division and bloodshed and to provoke retaliation by Israel that would lead to Arab and Muslim opinion being inflamed, not against those who started the aggression, but those who responded to it”. When it is the Anglo-American Establishment has actually planned this and set up Israel to take the retaliation.
Indeed, the reality of the `arc of the crisis’ is that it is created by the West. Staggering incompetence – too staggering without planning – by multiple US agencies led to 911 and a war on terror supported by the US public. They claim they do not know where Bin Laden is yet Al-Qaeda is full of their double agents. ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/11/04/MN117081.DTL, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/17/1472/52474, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/23/walq23.xml, http://www.911citizenswatch.org/print.php?sid=82). Analysts like Peter Goodgame in `The Globalists and the Islamists’, claim that the global elite has had a hand in shaping and financing all the terrorist organizations of the twentieth century, including the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, Hamas of Palestine and the Afghan Mujahideen.
But Blair does suggest that it is not only one region when he states the conflict in the Middle East and beyond was “in part a struggle between what I call reactionary Islam and moderate mainstream Islam, but its implications go far wider. We are fighting a war – but not just against terrorism, but about how the world should govern itself in the early 21st century, about global values.” When he says “how the world should govern itself” and “global values”, it is code for one world government.
The man behind the regional agenda is George Schultz who is also the political point man for the global agenda. Many rich and powerful groups, such as MPs, can be allured to support the regional agenda but it is likely that it is being used as a trap to spring the global one-world government agenda.
But the global agenda is not really about the Project of the New American Century and US domination. It is about the bankers’ fear that they will not indefinitely control the US so they are pushing the US into wars that will exhaust and bankrupt it. It is about creating global chaos and economic catastrophe. Such chaos will persuade people and politicians that the world needs less national sovereignty and more global government.
This is the view is supported by Dr. Tatyana Koryagina, a senior research fellow at the Russian Ministry of Economic Development and special adviser to President Putin. She became famous after predicting the collapse of the Russian economy in 1998 and the collapse of the US economy after an autumn attack in 2001.
Her interview in the newspaper, Pravda, in July 2001 was widely discussed. She said: “There are international `super-state’ and `super-government’ groups. In accordance with tradition, the mystical and religious components play extremely important roles in human history…
“The U.S. has been chosen as the object of financial attack because the financial centre of the planet is located there. The effect will be maximal. The strike waves of economic crisis will spread over the planet instantly and will remind us of the blast of a huge nuclear bomb.”
Lebanon may have been chosen as the beginning of a new agenda. If so, then Bush-Blair will want the conflict there to continue and to spread. They will face serious opposition from other Western elites and other countries, particularly Russia. And it may be that they will require a second 9/11 to launch the war on Iran.