A blog dedicated to investigating events as they occur in Judea and Samaria, in Israel and in the world, and as they relate to global powers and/or to the Israeli government, public figures, etc. It is dedicated to uncovering the truth behind the headlines; and in so doing, it strives to do its part in saving Judea and Samaria, and by extension, Israel and the Jewish People, from utter destruction at the hands of its many external and internal enemies.

Sunday, June 21, 2009

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF IRAN. A scholarly article.

What is the Role of Iran? Parts 1- 5
Anonymous sent this. I didn't read it yet, but it looks like an important document.


There is no evidence that Albert Pike was ever a close personal friend of Cecil Rhodes, but at about the same time Pike developed his plan which he shared with Mazzini, a young Cecil Rhodes began to develop his own plan for a secret Society of the Elect...


By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.

 For many years, one has heard of an 1871 plan of Albert Pike (Luciferian) and Giuseppe Mazzini (Italian revolutionary referred to as an "established point of light when rays traversed the world") to overthrow all religious and monarchical authority. It called for 3 world wars, the third of which would be between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West. There has been much debate over whether this plan was a hoax because author William Guy Carr learned of it from the writings of Cardinal Caro y Rodriguez of Chile in the 1920s, which would be after the First World War and in anticipation of the Second World War. However, most researchers have not bothered to find out that Cardinal Rodriguez referred to 2 French books from the 1890s---BEFORE any world war occurred ! In one of them, LE PALLADISME (1895) by Domenic Margiotta, Pike is referred to as "the Great Luciferian Pontiff," and the author relates that Pike wrote a pamphlet describing a "project of universal destruction" in which the religions of the world, including Islam, would literally war against each other.

Margiotta also reveals that according to Pike's plan, "There are also the outcasts, the miserable ones, several millions of free-thinking deists, and 2 million atheists, dedicated by the great Luciferian Pontiff to the reprobation of the sect, threatened by complete extermination or by complete conversion to the religion of the 'True Light' (Lucifer)." The original Pike pamphlet has not been found, but we know that this sounds like Pike, because in both his MORALS AND DOGMA (1871) and INDO-ARYAN DEITIES AND WORSHIP (1872), he praised Lucifer and on page 817 of MORALS AND DOGMA he opined that "The Papacy and the rival monarchies...tomorrow, perhaps, will destroy each other....The world will soon come to us for its Sovereigns and Pontiffs. We shall constitute the equilibrium of the Universe, and be rulers over the Masters of the World."

Since Muslims (among others) were part of the Pike plan, it is important to look at what the role of Iran might be in bringing about a global conflagration, since an Iranian sect today believes such a conflict could bring the Mahdi (a Muslim prophet who is supposed to appear before the end of the world). In an article, "Later than we think" (THE WASHINGTON TIMES, February 6, 2006), Arnaud de Borchgrave explained that Iranian "President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Shiite creed has convinced him lesser mortals can not only influence but hasten the awaited return of the 12th Imam, known as the Mahdi. Iran's dominant 'Twelver' sect holds this will be Muhammad Ibn Hasan, the righteous descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. He is said to have gone into 'occlusion' in the 9th century, at age 5.

His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war, bloodshed and pestilence. After this cataclysmic confrontation between the forces of good and evil, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace....President Ahmadinejad reckons the return of the Imam, AWOL for 11 centuries, is only two years away. Mr. Ahmadinejad is close to the messianic Hojjatieh Society, which is governed by the conviction the 12th Imam's return will be hastened by 'the creation of chaos on Earth'." An attack on Iran would also certainly drive oil prices up, plus the leaders of Iran could also send thousands of suicide bombers into Iraq to create even more chaos in that country. Regarding the chaos in Iraq, one might want to reflect upon the description of "chaos theory" in SPIRITUAL POLITICS: CHANGING THE WORLD FROM THE INSIDE OUT by Corinne McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson (who worked for Lucis Trust, formerly Lucifer Publishing), in which they revealed that "at the heart of the most random or chaotic event lies order, pattern, and causality, if only we can learn to see it in a large enough context."

There is no evidence that Albert Pike was ever a close personal friend of Cecil Rhodes, but at about the same time Pike developed his plan which he shared with Mazzini, a young Cecil Rhodes began to develop his own plan for a secret Society of the Elect "to take the government of the whole world," in Rhodes' own words. And since those carrying out Rhodes' plan would come to control British foreign affairs for decades, it is worth examining Britain's role in promoting a pan-Islamist movement, especially pertaining to Iran and Iranians. The radical Islam of the Iranian mullahs today traces its origin back through the Muslim Brotherhood (founded in Egypt in 1928) to the 1870s.

According to Robert Dreyfuss in DEVIL'S GAME: HOW THE UNITED STATES HELPED UNLEASH FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM (2005), "from the 1870s to the 1890s, Jamal Eddine al-Afghani (an Iranian) was supported by the United Kingdom." Afghani in 1885 proposed the idea of a British-led pan-Islamic alliance, and "in 1882, in India, according to a secret file of the Indian government's intelligence service---Afghani officially offered to go to Egypt as an agent of British Intelligence." Afghani formed many secret societies, and his chief disciple was Egyptian pan-Islamic activist Mohammed Abduh. Abduh's ideas were promoted in Egypt in THE LIGHTHOUSE magazine, which influenced Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

After the British literally took control of Egypt in 1881, Flora Shaw in 1886 went there as a correspondent for William Stead's PALL MALL GAZETTE. Stead was a confidante of Cecil Rhodes, and both Rhodes and Shaw (and Gandhi) were disciples of John Ruskin, who wrote of the British that "We are still undegenerate in race; a race mingled of the best northern blood." Ruskin also espoused a Socialist doctrine in TIME AND TIDE (1867), with greater Government authority over the people. Stead introduced Shaw to Rhodes in 1889, two years before Rhodes' secret society was formed, and Shaw became an ardent supporter of Rhodes' dream.

Upon Rhodes' death, his plan was implemented by Lord Alfred Milner, whose allies controlled British foreign affairs for decades. One of Milner's allies, Sir Edward Grey, misled the German Ambassador to England into thinking Britain would not enter the conflict over the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, thereby leading to the First World War in 1914. In the MONTREAL GAZZETTE (September 11, 1912) is related by Abdul-Baha that "the time is less than two years hence" when "a tiny spark will set the world ablaze." Abdul-Baha was the leader of the Baha'i, which promotes world government and one common faith. The Baha'i religion was founded in Iran by Baha Ullah, known as the "Point" or "Unity" who spoke of a United Nations of the World as early as 1860. And according to Robert Dreyfuss in DEVIL'S GAME, the Baha'i religion has been accused of having ties to British Intelligence, with Abdul-Baha knighted by the British government.

Before World War I, the British had already helped the family of Ibn Saud create the first fundamentalist (Wahhabi) Islamic nation of Saudi Arabia, and helped install Hashemites as kings of Iraq and Jordan. After the First World War, Sir Percy Cox in November 1922 drew up what became the Iraq-Kuwait border, which deliberately did not allow Iraq access to the sea, so it would remain dependent upon Britain. This would play an important part in Iraq's resentment toward the West and Kuwait, which helped to cause recent conflicts in that region.

After the Second World War, the pan-Islamic Muslim Brotherhood was used by British Intelligence (MI6) and the CIA against nationalist leaders Gamel Abdel Nasser in Egypt and democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran. When Mossadegh nationalized Iranian oil in the early 1950s, the British and CIA funded his overthrow in August 1953 with the help of Ayatollah Seyyed Abolqassem Kashani, and reinstalled the Shah of Iran. The U.S. then in 1978 removed from power the Shah, who was succeeded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who had been mentored by Kashani.

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski thought he could use the Iranian government, including the Iranian Shiite mullahs as part of an "arc" of resistance from Egypt eastward against Soviet expansionism. When "students" supported by Khomeini took over the U.S, Embassy in Tehran, Iran, it presented a crisis. However, as Robert Dreyfuss notes: "Along with the threat from Khomeinism, some U.S. policy makers also saw opportunity...using the Islamic right to undermine the Soviet Union in its own empire, deep in Central Asia....The twin Islamic movements in Iran and (Muslim Brotherhood linked organizations like Al Qaeda in) Afghanistan, inspired Brzezinski and Bill Casey (President Reagan's CIA director) to pursue the Islam-in-Asia ('arc-of-Islam') theme aggressively."

Brzezinski developed a plan of financial and other support for Afghanistan hoping to lure the Soviets into involvement in a quagmire there, and the Soviets invaded in December 1979. After this, Zalmay Khalilzad (current U.S. Ambassador to Iraq), a neoconservative RAND strategist, wrote a paper explaining "the Khomeini regime also poses risks to the Soviets. The change of regime has encouraged similar movements in Iraq and Afghanistan, and might even affect Soviet Muslim Central Asia."

Perhaps it is useful at this time to remember that according to a 1952 map prepared by the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government meeting in London in 1952, when the World Government comes into being, U.S. forces would be patrolling Central Asia (e.g., Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc.). Brzezinski at Mikhail Gorbachev's first State of the World Forum in 1995 said: "We cannot leap into world government through one quick step. A consensual global system requires a process....The precondition for eventual and genuine globalization is progressive regionalization because by that we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units." This is the same strategy proposed by Cecil Rhodes' Association of Helpers member P. E. Corbett in POST-WAR WORLDS (1942).

Relevant to this, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS, the world's central bank for all nations' central banks) produced in 2003, Paper No. 17, "Regional Currency Areas and the Use of Foreign Currencies." The BIS has been promoting the "Amero" as the currency for a North American Monetary Union, first proposed in 1999 by the Fraser Institute of Canada. The ultimate goal of the power elite is to link all regional economic arrangements into a single global system with one global currency which, according to THE ECONOMIST (January 9, 1988), will be around 2018 A.D. and called the "Phoenix."


Syria is also targeted by the U.S., and the justification given will be that is where Iraq sent its WMD (which we have known, and I have reported, all along). But just as the U.S. did not like it when Iraq switched from the dollar to the Euro, the U.S. did not like it when early this month (February 2006), Syria also switched from the dollar to the Euro...

In 1981, Ronald Reagan became President, but unfortunately ignored the threat from Iran early in his administration. According to longtime CIA Middle East operative Robert Baer in SEE NO EVIL (2002), Baer looked at "an intelligence report from March 1982---a full thirteen months before the embassy bombing---stating that Iran was in touch with a network capable of destroying the U.S. embassy in Beirut. A subsequent report even specified a date the operation should be carried out." The attack was carried out by the Islamic Jihad Organization, which Baer described as "merely a front for the Iranians." Baer further reasoned that "the conclusion was unavoidable: The Islamic Republic of Iran had declared a secret war against the United States, and the United States had chosen to ignore it."

The U.S. government during the Reagan years also knew that the Iranian-sponsored Islamist network was already here in the U.S. in the mid-1980s. In TARGET AMERICA: TERRORISM IN THE U.S. TODAY (1993) by Yossef Bodansky (director of the U.S. House of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare), one learns that this network "had markedly expanded and become better organized. The Islamist infrastructure already included all the components of a mature terrorist support system. These included safe houses in major cities, weapons, ammunition, money, systems to provide medical and legal aid, false identity papers, and intelligence for the operative. The network was also large and spanned the United States."

Bodansky also revealed that "the training of suicide pilots started in Busher air base in Iran in the early 1980s....The first installation was established in Wakilabad near Mashhad....According to a former trainee in Wakilabad, one of the exercises included having an Islamic jihad detachment seize (or hijack) a transport aircraft. Then, trained air crews from among the terrorists would crash the airliner with its passengers into a selected objective."

Two years after Bodansky wrote this, additional information was developed. According to Associated Press writer John Solomon's "Warnings Before 1995 Oklahoma Bombing" (June 20, 2002), "'Iranian sources confirmed Tehran's desire and determination to strike inside the U.S. against objects symbolizing the American government in the near future,' said a February 27, 1995, terror warning by the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. The warnings became increasingly specific as to the possible location, type of attack, and likely dates. 'These strikes are most likely to occur either in the immediate future or in the new Iranian year---starting 21 March 1995,' the congressional task force predicted."

Then Jim Crogan in "An Oklahoma Mystery: New hints of links between Timothy McVeigh and Middle Eastern terrorists" (L.A. WEEKLY, July 24-30, 2002) stated that Bodansky wrote "that after the bombing, it was determined that Oklahoma City had been 'on the list of potential targets.'...An undated intelligence report by Bodansky discusses alleged terrorist training inside the U.S. that included some 'Lilly Whites.'...Bodansky states the training was ordered by Iran and conducted by Hamas operatives....The second training occurred in 1993. It was specifically for Lilly Whites. They also used code names and were given state-of-the-art car-bomb training. Bodansky's sources also report that at least two of the 1993 participants came from Oklahoma City."

In Yossef Bodansky's BIN LADEN (1999), one then learns that "in the early months of 1996, Tehran started laying the foundation for the next phase in the terrorist jihad, establishment of the HizbAllah International, with (Osama) bin Laden in a senior position. The significance of this organization for the prevailing terrorist threat was demonstrated in its first strikes: the bombing of the U.S. barracks in Khobar, Saudi Arabia; the downing of TWA 800; and the assassination of a U.S. intelligence officer in Cairo."

Given the revelations above, how could the U.S. possibly have all this information unless American intelligence agencies have been monitoring the Iranians in the U.S. and elsewhere for a long time? Secondly, why would the U.S. want to oust a contained, secularist Saddam Hussein from Iraq, and have elections there resulting in Islamic law being imposed by a Shiite majority religiously aligned with Iran, which is closer to having nuclear weapons (WMD) than Saddam ever was? And most recently, why would the Bush administration so vigorously defend its approval of the sale of a company managing at least 6 major U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which supported Osama bin Laden and the Taliban before 9/11 and since 9/11 has still served as a base for Al Qaeda?

Wouldn't computer access to port security information be useful to Al Qaeda or Iranian-supported terrorists? Remember that 2 of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE, and according to Niles Lathem's article, "Qaeda Claim: We 'Infiltrated' UAE Gov't" (NEW YORK POST, February 25, 2006): "Al Qaeda warned the government of the United Arab Emirates more than three years ago that it 'infiltrated' key government agencies, according to a disturbing document released by the U.S. military. The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of 'mujahedeen detainees,' who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

The explosive document is certain to become ammunition for critics of the controversial UAE port...." Also recall that CIA agents allegedly met with Osama bin Laden at a Dubai hospital in July 2001 (see Alexandra Richards's "CIA Agent Allegedly Met bin Laden in July," LE FIGARO, October 31, 2001; and see Anthony Simpson's "CIA agent alleged to have met bin Laden in July," THE GUARDIAN, November 1, 2001). And while you are recalling this, you might also want to remember that a UAE sheik gave at least $1 million to the (George H.W.) Bush Library Foundation. Last year, Dubai International Capital, a government-backed buyout firm, invested in an $8 billion fund of the Carlyle Group, for which former President Bush has been a consultant and marketer, and the current President Bush has received fees as director of a subsidiary.

What will probably happen with the Dubai Ports World takeover is that another 45-day review will give the Bush administration time to "educate" (arm twist) enough Congressional Democrats and Republicans not to demand certain guarantees (e.g., Can Americans be guaranteed no employee of Dubai Ports World will be threatened by Al Qaeda into providing security information from computers?) regarding national security because of the takeover. This is despite an Associated Press article, "Paper: Coast Guard Has Port Co. Intel Gaps," by Liz Sidoti on February 27, 2006, that begins: "Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday. The surprise disclosure came during a hearing on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports."

What might precipitate a conflict between Iran and the U.S.? Next month (March 2006), Iran will bring online the "Bourse" exchange for oil sales around the world, which could accept Euros, etc., instead of dollars (currently nations must use dollars to buy oil). In November 2000 (when George W. Bush was elected president), Iraq stopped accepting dollars for oil and under the U.N. oil-for-food program switched to the Euro. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, we had Iraq switch back to accepting the dollar. According to economic expert Jim Puplava, the Iranian action this March will be the first serious challenge to Anglo-American dominance of the commodities market globally.

This will challenge the status of the dollar as nations' reserve currency, which will lessen the value of the dollar for Americans, thereby impacting our economy (e.g., greater budget deficits, because we cannot just print dollars to pay our debt without lessening the value of the dollar). Watch for some type of reaction to this by the U.S. government, including attempts to destabilize the government of Iran. And if that fails, watch for some type of "incident" that will precipitate U.S. (or Israeli) military action against Iran (remember the 2 British agents dressed as Arabs who recently caused "incidents" until caught by Iraqi police). Perhaps the only reason such action has not already occurred is because China has a tremendous economic stake in Iranian oil, etc. And China has purchased a great deal of American debt. What if they threaten to no longer do this if the U.S. attacks Iran? And remember here that China has also contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M.

And what might Iran do if attacked? Yossef Bodansky revealed that Iranians were responsible for downing TWA 800. What if Iranian agents in the U.S. downed several American airliners? Do you remember the effect upon our economy as a result of 9/11? And what if Iranian agents here used helicopters to attack athletic stadiums filled with tens of thousands of people? What if they also derailed trains here carrying passengers or dangerous chemicals? What if they set fires to forests, apartment complexes, etc., at night? What if they blew up gas lines in cities? What if they poisoned foods in grocery stores and fast-food restaurants? If they did these things, and more, the human and economic impact would be many times greater than the impact of 9/11.

 And concerning what Iran might do to Israel if attacked, Yossi Melman (HAARETZ correspondent) in "Iranian advisor: We'll strike Dimona in response to U.S. attack" (February 25, 2006), reported: "If the United States launches an attack on Iran, the Islamic republic will retaliate with a military strike on Israel's main nuclear facility. Dr. Abasi, an advisor to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, said Tehran would respond to an American attack with strikes on the Dimona nuclear reactor and other strategic Israeli sites such as the port city of Haifa and the Zakhariya area. Haifa is also home to a large concentration of chemical factories and oil refineries. Zakhariya, located in the Jerusalem hills, is---according to foreign reports---home to Israel's Jericho missile base."

 Syria is also targeted by the U.S., and the justification given will be that is where Iraq sent its WMD (which we have known, and I have reported, all along). But just as the U.S. did not like it when Iraq switched from the dollar to the Euro, the U.S. did not like it when early this month (February 2006), Syria also switched from the dollar to the Euro for international currency exchange transactions. This likewise could play a role in whether the U.S. takes action against Syria.


Regarding the Middle East conflict between Israel and Palestinian Arabs, Lord Milner told the British House of Lords in 1923 that Jews could be the majority population in the region west of the Jordan River, but the region "must never become a Jewish state."

[NOTE: On March 24, The New York Times published "China Urges New Money Reserve to Replace Dollar," which began with the following: "In another indication that China is growing increasingly concerned about holding huge dollar reserves, the head of its central bank has called for the eventual creation of a new international currency reserve to replace the dollar." The next day, the London Telegraph published "U.S. Backing for World Currency Stuns Markets," which began: "U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner shocked global markets by revealing that Washington is 'quite open' to Chinese proposals for the gradual development of a global reserve currency run by the International Monetary Fund. The dollar plunged instantly against the euro, yen, and sterling as the comments flashed across trading screens. David Bloom, currency chief at HSBC, said the apparent policy shift amounts to an earthquake in geo-finance. 'The mere fact that the U.S. Treasury Secretary is even entertaining thoughts that the dollar may cease being the anchor of the global monetary system has caused consternation,' he said. Mr. Geithner later qualified his remarks, insisting that the dollar would remain the 'world's dominant reserve currency… for a long period of time,' but the seeds of doubt have been sown."

Remember, the cover of The Economist for January 9, 1988 showed a picture of "The Phoenix" as the global currency planned for 2018 A.D. I put this information in my book, Now Is the Dawning of the New Age New World Order published in 1991, and the term New World Order again is being used today to describe the current situation. On ABC's evening news for April 2, Charles Gibson said to Fred Bergsten (Peterson Institute for International Economics): "It was extraordinary to hear the British prime minister and the French president at the end of this (G20 meeting) almost suggesting that this represents a New World Order. Does it?" And Bergsten replied: "In a very important sense it does represent a New World Order. The G20 includes five countries from the Americas, five from Asia, five from Europe, and five from elsewhere. It's the true globalization of economic decision making." Bergsten also noted that the G20 meeting "tells our country and our people that the world crisis… is being effectively responded to by global policy." And establishing "global policy" is the first step in the Power Elite's (PE) establishment of a World Socialist Government.

The Obama administration has announced its desire eventually to abolish all nuclear weapons in the world. Assuming Obama has any intelligence at all, why would he want to return to the days of World War II where an evil aggressor like Hitler can invade other nations without fear of serious immediate consequences? Think of an Asia where an expansionist Communist China ruled by dictators decides to be aggressive (e.g., against Taiwan) and doesn't mind losing millions of its own people because it has 1.3 billion of them. And the only weapons that could be used against them would be conventional ones that can inflict only limited damage over a period of time. And think of a sparsely populated nation such as Israel with only conventional weapons to use against hostile Arab nations with very large populations and armies. Doesn't Obama's desired world free of nuclear weapons make possible the Book of Revelation's reference to Iraq's Euphrates River drying up, making way for a massive ground assault from the East in the Battle of Armageddon?]

Mike Evans has written a new book, Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos, which devotes a great deal of attention to President Carter and Iran. Perhaps the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979 did as much as anything else to prevent the re-election of Jimmy Carter as president. But what most people don't realize is that crises like this are manipulated by the PE to fulfill their ultimate plan for a World Socialist Government.

I've written about PE members like Cecil Rhodes and David Rockefeller many times before, and two of Jimmy Carter's most significant foreign policy mentors were David Rockefeller and Rhodes scholar Hedley Donovan (editor-in-chief of TIME). After their meeting with Carter in London, Rockefeller named Carter as the Democratic gubernatorial representative to his Trilateral Commission (TC), which was established in 1973. According to Laurence Shoup in Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management (edited by Holly Sklar), membership on the TC assured Carter of favorable press coverage in his 1976 run for the presidency.

Once Carter became president, he selected Rhodes scholar Stansfield Turner as head of the CIA. According to Evans, Iran's leader Mohammed Reza (Shah) Pahlavi believed the CIA was behind the unrest in his country during this time. After all, the CIA and the British under Operation Ajax in August 1953 had helped revolutionaries depose elected leader Muhammad Mossadegh and install the Shah. This was done with the help of the Ayatollah Seyyed Abolqassam Kashani, mentor of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Khomeini had British connections, and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) opposed the Shah. Evans relates that Iran-expert Uri Lubrani told him the American Ambassador to Iran (1977-79) William Sullivan "had little experience in Iran [and] was very much reliant on Tony Parsons, the British Ambassador." Parsons attended Oxford University's Balliol College in 1949, and Reginald Baliol Brett was one of three individuals closest to Rhodes in his secret Society of the Elect "to take the government of the whole world." In an interview with Evans on March 28, 2008, Farah Pahlavi (wife of the Shah) said Mrs. Ferdinand Marcos sent her a message saying: "Marcos told me to tell you that wherever Sullivan goes, he creates a revolution."

Farah Pahlavi knew Sullivan was in contact with many groups in Iran who were opposed to the Shah and wanted to replace him with Khomeini. The PE liked Khomeini, who was a Fascist according to author David Pryce-Jones. This is because the PE plans to create a techno-feudal Fascist New World Order on its way to a World Socialist Government.

Evans presents the view that Carter administration officials simply missed the threat of Khomeini's rise to power, but I believe it's just too improbable that they overlooked his references to the U.S. as the "Great Satan" and his urging his followers in the early 1970s to assassinate Americans.

The importance of Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (ZB) in all of this also shouldn't be ignored. ZB in his 1970 book Between Two Ages had praised Marxism, and in 1973 David Rockefeller made ZB the first director of his TC. This was the same year (1973) Rockefeller in The New York Times praised Communist China's ruthless Chairman Mao. For the PE, Communism serves as the antithesis of Capitalism in its plan to synthesize both into a World Socialist Government.

During the Carter presidency, ZB was duplicitous regarding the Shah. Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post in "Carter Set To Tell European Allies He Fully Backs Shah" (January 5, 1979) related that in a briefing by ZB, reporters were told "President Carter will reiterate his support of the Shah." However, when Carter met with these allies, French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing in his Le Pouvour et la Vie said: "The President Jimmy Carter told us suddenly that the United States had decided not to support the regime of the Shah anymore."

ZB urged dropping support for the Shah, instead opting for a military coup by those supporting the Shah. This was also the position of the CIA. Without the support of the U.S., the Shah's fate was sealed and he departed Iran on January 17, 1979.

According to Evans, President George Bush's and President Barack Obama's Secretary of Defense Robert Gates participated in a meeting with ZB during the Khomeini takeover in Iran, and Gates related that ZB "outlined the U.S. stance regarding the ouster of the Shah and Khomeini's new Islamic Revolution very succinctly: Acceptance of the Revolution; recognition of Khomeini's government; supplies of arms contracted by the Shah delivered to Khomeini; and a future working relationship."

This was all part of ZB's "Green Belt" or Pan-Islamic strategy to create a buffer against Soviet southward expansion. Khomeini wanted to be the leader of the Muslim world, and Evans reveals that a former naval intelligence officer and CIA operative informed him "that the U.S. government wrote checks to Khomeini in increments of approximately $150 million." However, the PE wants no national leader, including Khomeini, to become too strong, as that could pose problems in achieving their ultimate goal. Thus, one can understand why the PE's military enforcer (the U.S.) would supply Iraq and Iran with the ingredients with which to make chemical weapons of mass destruction to use against each other. And Evans even acknowledges "there are those who believe the U.S. may have subtly encouraged the Iran-Iraq conflict."

Other examples of how the PE limits the strength of any one nation include the Milner Group's (Lord Alfred Milner carried out Rhodes' plan after the latter's death) Sir Percy Cox as British High Commissioner in late November 1922 drawing up what became the Iraq-Kuwait border, which deliberately did not allow Iraq access to the sea so its influence in the Persian Gulf would be limited. Similarly, the British comprised Nigeria (and other African nations) of competing groups. And the recent stalemate of Russia and Georgia (with U.S. support) over South Ossetia was another example of national power limitation.

Regarding the Middle East conflict between Israel and Palestinian Arabs, Lord Milner told the British House of Lords in 1923 that Jews could be the majority population in the region west of the Jordan River, but the region "must never become a Jewish state." Relevant to Palestine, British Mandate Administrator Herbert Samuel was a member of the Milner Group, and in 1921 he appointed Hajj (Muhamud Effendi) Amin Al-Husseini as Mufti (interpreter/judge of Muslim law) and then head political administrator of Arab Palestine. This was after Al-Husseini came in fourth in a vote after Samuel pardoned him for murder. Al-Husseini had killed many Jews, but was pardoned by Samuel, who was himself a liberal Jew. Why? This was because the British PE members led by the Milner Group (including Samuel) played different factions (Jews and Arabs) against each other in order that no one group would become too powerful.


The British "Power Elite" (PE) members didn't like any strong national leaders. These included Egypt's Gamal Abdal Nasser (who nationalized the Suez Canal on July 26, 1956) and Iran's Mohammad Mossadegh, who nationalized that country's oil industry at the expense of the British.

[NOTE: Who said the following? "This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture…. The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call – to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness-idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men." Doesn't this sound like the Communitarian philosophy of today? Actually, it was Hitler who wrote the quoted words in Mein Kampf (July 18, 1925). Further relevant to what is occurring today, Leonard Peikoff in Ominous Parallels (1982) wrote: "Contrary to the Marxists, the Nazis did not advocate public ownership of the means of production. They did demand that the government oversee and run the nation's economy.

The issue of legal ownership, they explained, is secondary; what counts is the issue of control. Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property – so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property…. But the Nazis defended their policies, and the country did not rebel; it accepted the Nazi argument. Selfish individuals may be unhappy, the Nazis said, but what we have established in Germany is the ideal system, socialism. In its Nazi usage this term is not restricted to a theory of economics; it is to be understood in a fundamental sense. 'Socialism' for the Nazis denotes the principle of collectivism as such and its corollary, statism – in every field of human action, including but not limited to economics. 'To be a socialist,' says Goebbels, 'is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.'"]

The British "Power Elite" (PE) members didn't like any strong national leaders. These included Egypt's Gamal Abdal Nasser (who nationalized the Suez Canal on July 26, 1956) and Iran's Mohammad Mossadegh, who nationalized that country's oil industry at the expense of the British. In Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ben Bagdikian's The Media Monopoly, one reads about "when Kermit Roosevelt, a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer, wrote a book called Countercoup: The Struggle for the Control of Iran. It was the author's inside version of how intelligence agencies overthrew a left-leaning Iranian premier, Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1953 and reinstated the Shah. The issue was control of oil. The plot was called 'Ajax,' of which Roosevelt wrote: 'The original proposal for Ajax came from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) after its expulsion from Iran nine months earlier.' The book was published by McGraw-Hill in early 1979. Books were on sale in bookstores and reviewer copies were already in the mail when British Petroleum, successor corporation to AIOC, persuaded McGraw-Hill to recall all the books – from the stores and from reviewers."

As I indicated in Part 3 of this series, the British PE Milner Group didn't want a strong Israel. Thus, during the Carter administration, according to Morton Klein, Secretary of State Cyrus Vance (member of Yale University's secret society Scroll & Key) "once revealed that if Carter had won a second term, he intended to sell Israel down the river."

Today, the PE uses the terrorist acts of radical Muslims against Israel as a means of pressuring Israelis to make compromises that will lead to an eventual acceptance of a World Socialist Government. I've quoted in the past Lincoln Bloomfield's Study Memorandum No. 7 for Rhodes scholar Secretary of State Dean Rusk in 1962: "If the communist dynamic was greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government." So just substitute the words "radical Muslim" for "communist" and "Israel" for "the West," and you will understand the PE's mechanism at work today.

But it's not as though no Israeli could anticipate the future, because Look magazine (January 16, 1962) published Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion's prediction of what the world would look like in 25 years: "The Cold War will be a thing of the past… a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union…. On the other hand, the United States [will be transformed] into a welfare state with a planned economy. Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force…. A pill to prevent pregnancy will slow down the explosive natural increase in China and India…."

Concerning U.S. support for radical Muslims like Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan, on July 3, 1979 President Carter signed a directive approving covert aid to anti-Soviet fighters in Kabul. And Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (ZB) told The Guardian reporters David Leigh and Richard Norton-Taylor ("House of Saud Looks Close to Collapse," November 21, 2001), "that the Russians had been drawn into what he saw as his cleverly baited trap. The day the Soviet forces crossed the border [into Afghanistan] he wrote to Carter, saying: 'We now have the opportunity to give the USSR their Vietnam War.'" Often unreported about this chapter in U.S. history is the role of China, but Mike Evans in his new book, Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos, points out that in January 1980, Secretary of Defense Harold Brown "was able to secure permission for U.S. supply planes to traverse Chinese air space on flights to arm the Afghan Mujahadeen. Soon thereafter, and despite China's history of ignoring human rights issues, Congress conferred upon the Chinese government the status of most-favored-nation. The U.S. agreed to sell specific technological materials that had both military and civilian uses."

When asked later about the wisdom of supporting radical Muslims, ZB reportedly said: "What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?" (See Blowback: The Cost and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson.)

"Some agitated Moslems"?! According to Clare Lopez of The Centre for Counter Intelligence and Security Studies, Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS, also known as VEVAK, Vezarat-e Ettela'at va Amniat-e Keshvar) was involved in the 1996 attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia (19 Americans killed), the 1998 East African Embassy bombings, and the October 2000 attack (by Al Qaeda) on the USS Cole. VEVAK was also involved in the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, about which the U.S. had foreknowledge! According to CIA agent Robert Baer in See No Evil (2002), he saw "an intelligence report from March 1982 – a full 13 months before the Embassy bombing – stating that Iran was in touch with a network capable of destroying the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. A subsequent report even specified a date the operation should be carried out. The source was firsthand and its validity rock solid." Ask yourself why the U.S. would allow its Embassy to be bombed when it had foreknowledge of the attack.


Recently ZB has been an advisor to Barack Obama and has defended the President's decision to meet with Iranian officials in the future. This, of course, will be welcomed by the Iranians and used as part of their delaying tactics until they achieve a nuclear weapon.

[NOTE: Relevant to Barack Obama's candidacy for the presidency being scripted, on September 5, 2008, Saul Alinsky's son, David, wrote a letter to the Boston Globe stating: "The Democratic National Convention had all the elements of the perfectly organized event, Saul Alinsky style." Saul Alinsky wrote Rules For Radicals (which has an acknowledgement to Lucifer at the front), and David Alinsky's letter said "Obama learned his lesson well" as a follower of Saul Alinsky's model for organizing. Interestingly, Kyle-Anne Shiver in "Obama's Alinsky Jujitsu" (American Thinker, January 8, 2008) earlier noted: "Alinsky saw the already formed church communities as being the perfect springboards for agitation and creating bonds for demanding goods and services." Does this have the ring of any church growth movement leaders today?

Shortly after Obama became president, Fox News host Greta van Susteren's "On the Record" (March 27, 2009) began with her stating: "Tonight, a dictatorship? A power grab? Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich says President Obama is making the biggest power grab in American history and moving America towards a dictatorship." Later, she recounted that U.S. Senator Robert Byrd wrote on February 23 a letter to the President complaining essentially of a power grab when Obama named health czars or urban affairs policy experts at the White House. Gingrich said the stimulus package/appropriations bill "was written in the House under what is, in effect, a dictatorship" by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who "is the most powerful person in the government today. President Obama is the second most powerful."

Concerning Power Elite (PE) agent Henry Kissinger, very few people in the audience at the Munich Conference on Security Policy on February 8, 2009 laughed when U.S. National Security Advisor James Jones said to them: "I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today." Could it be that most didn't laugh because Jones' remarks had some ring of truth? Recently, Kissinger has been talking about the emerging "new world order," and on CNBC World's "Squawk Box Europe" (April 1, 2009), Financial Times editor Lionel Barber declared we're now living in a "new world order" where G20 countries will mainly focus on what China rather than the U.S. will do to solve the global financial crisis.]

Part 4 of this series ended with my giving examples of terrorist activities by "some agitated Moslems," whom Zbigniew Brzezinski (ZB) had said were less important than the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War. "Some agitated Moslems" also included the training of suicide pilots at Busher Air Base in Iran in the early 1980s. According to Yossef Bodansky (Director of the U.S. House of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare) in Target America: Terrorism in the U.S. Today (1993), one of the exercises of the suicide pilots (according to a former trainee) "included having an Islamic jihad detachment seize [or hijack] a transport aircraft. Then, trained air crews from among the terrorists would crash the airliner with its passengers into a selected objective." Sound like training for the attack of September 11, 2001?

ZB was no idiot. As an agent of the PE, he knew perfectly well the consequences of what he set in motion. In his The Grand Chessboard (1997), ZB explained: "How the United Stated both manipulates and manages Eurasia's key geopolitical pivots will be critical to the longevity and stability of America's global primacy…. A possible challenge to American primacy from Islamic fundamentalism could be part of the problem in this unstable region… and would be likely to express itself through diffuse violence…. The pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being…. America may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

The "direct external threat" that was "widely perceived" after 9/11 brought about the "foreign policy consensus" desired by the PE, along with their desired freedom-infringing Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act. And that the U.S. is the PE's primary military enforcer in this regard can be seen in ZB's statement in his book "that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space (Eurasia) and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it."

Only a globalist PE agent like ZB, as opposed to a patriotic nationalist, would believe "no single power" should control this or any other area. But we already knew from ZB's speech at Mikhail Gorbachev's first State of the World Forum in 1995 that he supports world government and has outlined a strategy using as a first step "progressive regionalization" to get there.

Remember, the PE, including Cecil Rhodes, have planned this for a very long time. Rudyard Kipling (who has swastikas on his early books) in 1888 wrote: "For the North, guns always – quietly – but always guns" (see Writings in Prose and Verse of Rudyard Kipling, 1899). Mike Evans in his book Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos asks: "Could he [Kipling] have possibly known that nearly 100 years hence the policies of first Jimmy Carter, then Ronald Reagan, as well as the ruling junta in Pakistan would supply the weapons necessary to raise a Mujahedeen army to fight the Russians [north] in Afghanistan? Could Kipling have unknowingly prophesied the mayhem that would arise from the decisions made by men as yet unborn?" Since Kipling was a member of the Rhodes Trust, his remarks may not have been made "unknowingly."

Recently ZB has been an advisor to Barack Obama and has defended the President's decision to meet with Iranian officials in the future. This, of course, will be welcomed by the Iranians and used as part of their delaying tactics until they achieve a nuclear weapon. Israel in all likelihood will not want to wait until that happens, but rather will plan to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran. The U.S. will try to dissuade Israel from taking such action, because if a "real war" ensues, Iran will block the Strait of Hormuz and hit Saudi oil refineries, creating a global fuel supply crisis. Iranian agents in the U.S. trained in terrorist activities and evasive tactics would have at least a month (remember it was a month before snipers Malvo and Mohammed were caught, and they weren't given training in evasion) to set forest fires and burn apartment complexes across the nation at night, derail passenger trains, poison food at grocery stores and fast-food restaurants, etc. etc.

However, if the PE is in control and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is actually from "Central Casting," all of the dire consequences possible from a real war may serve to coerce Israel, Iran, the U.S., etc. to negotiate a peaceful resolution that would lead all parties further down the path of accepting the PE's goal of a World Socialist Government. How would Iaraelis be manipulated into such negotiations? On the PBS "Charlie Rose Show" (April 7) former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte said that just as only a conservative like President Nixon could open the door to Communist China, perhaps only a conservative like new Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu could make the compromises with Israel's opponents "necessary" for peace.

And how would the Obama administration approach the subject of Iran? President Obama has indicated he is open to talks with Iran. From where does this openness come? Obama's Director of National Intelligence is Dennis Blair (Rhodes scholar) who wanted Charles Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council. Freeman (who withdrew his name from nomination) had been on the board of directors of the American-Iranian Council (AIC). The Obama administration doesn't seem sufficiently concerned about the fact that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and/or Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (VEVAK) have their spies operating out of Embassies and Consulates around the world. Their thousands of agents have been responsible for many terrorist attacks in Iraq and elsewhere. And Iran has given large amounts of aide to terrorist groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan, and to Hamas in Palestine, and $100 million per year to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The stress to various nations brought about by such terrorist activities is used by the PE to pressure these nations into negotiations that will pave the way toward a World Socialist Government. And in case you doubt that the PE has been planning world events for decades, just reflect upon the following from Sen. Joseph McCarthy's The Fight for America (1952): "Before meeting (Secretary of the Navy) Jim Forrestal, I thought we were losing to international Communism because of incompetence and stupidity on the part of our planners. I mentioned that to Forrestal. I shall forever remember his answer. He said, 'McCarthy, consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If they were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor.' This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since."

Click here for part -----> 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,


No comments: