Chapter 10
Empire: Global Pax-Americana


The False Left-Right Paradigm

The war on Iraq is just the first stage in a long-term agenda to firmly entrench New World Order controlled governments in key geo-strategic areas of the world and eliminate irritant regimes, be they good or bad. Control of natural resources is vital to the Globalists but not because it makes them money. The prime reason for imposing a monopoly on commodities such as oil, diamond and precious metals is to prevent other people from amassing capital.


This is important to emphasize because the elite largely call themselves capitalists, thereby giving the system of capitalism a bad reputation, when in fact they are monopoly hoarders. Free-market capitalism is the fairest and most successful form of government ever invented and if we were really living under this system then our society would be prosperous and happy.

In reality we are living under a system where our governments are in staggering amounts of debt to private, run for profit banks. Both the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England create money out of nothing and then charge interest on it. They are owned by private individuals most of whom are from Illuminati bloodlines. They are corporations and are subject to no government oversight because they bankroll the government. This fake money system enables banks to loan out ten times the amount of money it holds at any one time by simply typing it into a computer screen out of thin air.


Therefore, when the private owners of the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England want to create an economic crash, they simply call all the loans in that they created out of nothing. During an economic crash, the wealth does not just ‘disappear’ – it is collected by the bankers. Collected too is your home and business when you go bankrupt. You took out a loan that was created from nothing and yet you have to pay it back with your physical assets. This is the scam that we live under and yet the vast majority slide their credit card in the convenient little slot day-to-day blissfully unaware of how they have sold their life into slavery.

This book is not about the financial axis of the New World Order command system but I urge you to educate yourself on this matter if you have not already done so.

Because we are told that the elite are capitalists, many well-intentioned people think that communism will defeat the New World Order. The elite then fund the communist movement and the media tell everyone that big business capitalism (monopoly hoarding) is the only system available to us apart from communism. Communism and big business capitalism, or corporate fascism, are essentially the same system. They both serve to concentrate wealth in the hands of a tiny elite that owns and controls both government and business.

Again, It is not the scope of this book to take on such a mammoth subject, but it has been proven by authors such as Anthony Sutton that the Bolshevik revolution and other major movements and events in the history of communism, were funded by so-called capitalist bankers and industrialists from New York and Washington. I suggest you read his book, which is available for free online, for more information.1


1 Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution – Anthony C. Sutton


The New World Order system is a fusion of both communism and fascism, since both are essentially the same.


The communist system under Stalin was defined as a secret police, brutal murder and incarceration of political dissidents and other undesirables, and centralized control. The fascist system under Hitler was defined as a secret police, brutal murder and incarceration of political dissidents and other undesirables, and centralized control. Communism was called ‘leftwing’ and fascism was called ‘right-wing’ and yet the two are the exact mirror of each other.

I n the climate of the modern world the politics of society are being increasingly liberalized, no matter which party is in power. Liberals call for big government and this has helped the emergence of both the United Nations and the European Union as bodies of global government. Many leftists are deluded in thinking that, for example, the United Nations acts as a barrier against imperial U.S. aggression when it sanctions every U.S. war because it is controlled by the same people that control the U.S. government, in this case the Council on Foreign Relations.


Similarly, the European Union is subservient to the Bilderberg group. When you try to educate someone about the New World Order, they immediately think that you must either belong to the extreme left or right wing simply because you are well-versed in what is actually going on in the world. They assume, because they have been conditioned to do so, that you must have your own political agenda. The truth is, we just want to be left alone by the Globalists. We want to live our lives in a free country where government is once again accountable.


It’s not a lot to ask. But the media have systematically erected the perception whereby, if you talk about a New World Order, you must be a rightwing racist extremist. Or if you talk about out of control U.S. imperialism you must be a card carrying communist. These perceptions have been introduced by the Globalists to protect their identity - that much is obvious.

FIG 10.1

 [CAPTION: One of our hardest tasks is to educate people into understanding that there is no difference

between the political left and right – they both follow the same command and control policies.]


The left-right paradigm is used to frame debates and eliminate the possibility of restoring our society to one that is powerful and free. It is a psychological prison and has been artificially manufactured to limit people’s conceptual horizons and distract their attention.



Choose Your Poison

World government is the centralization of power into fewer and fewer hands. Tyrants have always sought to do this but now the process is being implemented on a global stage. In years past, people who discussed a New World Order agenda were considered to be nutcase conspiracy freaks because that is how the media stereotyped it. However, as the New World Order developed and expanded it inevitably had to become more visible and so the media began to admit that a New World Order existed but they then put the spin on it that it was good. Now anyone that talked negatively about the New World Order was stereotyped as an extremist, a reactionary and a racist. The New World Order is for global harmony they say. Isn’t world government a natural progression into 21st century new age oneness? You’re not for the terrorists are you?

Now that the New World Order was admitted, the media and its controllers had to frame the debate. And so the debate became not whether we should have a world government or not, but whether we should have a left-wing world government or a right-wing world government. Again the left/right paradigm was introduced to make us think we had freedom of choice, thus creating the perception that world government was a natural political development. The buildup to the proposed war on Iraq was part of a process of empowering the United Nations as the global authority, the left-wing world government.


It was played off against the USA-British-Israeli axis, the right-wing world government. The New York Times encapsulated this paradigm management when it reported on a European Union meeting concerning the possibility of war in Iraq, In fact, the entire emergency conference of European leaders, held to hammer out a common position on Iraq, was saturated with a commitment to what may be viewed as a form of world government, the supervision of countries by an international civil service bureaucracy whose headquarters is the United Nations. This is a notion that has long been viewed with suspicion and sometimes outright hostility by the United States.2

I would like to emphasize the importance of this article. No more is the concept of an agenda to create a system of global government viewed as a conspiracy theory. The New York Times will tell you there is such an agenda. What they won’t tell you is that this agenda pays for its advancement with human blood. The new pre-emptive doctrine dictates that whomever the elite define as a ‘rogue nation’ will be attacked directly, possibly with nuclear weapons.


2 ‘Nations Seek World Order Centered on U.N., Not U.S.’ - Richard Bernstein – New York Times – February 19 2003 –available at


This new approach was outlined in The National Security Strategy of the United States, which details the measures to be taken to ensure the United States’ superpower status is never threatened again. I’m supportive of the old principles of freedom being encouraged around the world but the new ‘freedom’ is defined as bombing countries into submission until they accept ‘democracy’ (mob rule). The age of sensible foreign policy as outlined by the founding fathers whereby the United States secured its borders and didn’t become entangled in continental wars is well and truly over.

It is constantly reinforced that to counter the crusades of the Anglo-American establishment, we need to hand over all power to the UN and the EU. They have taken a worm and cut it into two pieces. Both sections seem to be wriggling away independent of each other yet are made of the same substance.

Tony Blair is a key figure because he is the linkman between the European ‘leftwing’ bloc and the American ‘right-wing’ bloc of the Globalists. In late April 2003 Blair publicly called for ‘one polar power’ to be forged between Europe and the United States to ‘prevent another cold war’ – again using the threat of chaos to push global centralization of power.


Former MP Lord Tebbit went public to say of Blair,

“Never before have we had in office a Government and most particularly a Prime Minister who detests our history, our constitution, our institutions and indeed the very nation we are and whose intention is to subjugate us to foreign rule. The more vainglorious passages spoke of alliances to solve the wider world’s problems, wars in the Congo, global poverty and famine and, of course, the installation of a Government in Afghanistan acceptable to a world opinion - that is, acceptable to the international jurists favoured by Mr Blair. The outrages in Yugoslavia and those of September 11 in New York have confirmed in the mind of Mr Blair the need not merely to submerge the UK into a Euro-state but to create a wider world authority. Whether his allies in Washington and Brussels fully share his ambition is another matter.”3

The trick is that they do share his ambition and the only squabbling occurs when disagreements arise as to how best hoodwink the masses in to accepting global government. At this point some of you may be thinking that it is impossible to coordinate such a large-scale agenda without someone finding out about it. Well we have found out about it and we’ve been trying to tell you for years but you didn’t listen!


We also have to remember that the vast majority of those in fairly high positions of power merely ape the attitude of the elite without understanding the overall agenda because they just wish to maintain their status level. Anyone who wants to pursue a career in politics knows that they will have to embrace the vaunted ideology of globalism to climb the ladder. This means the elite have an army of unwitting water carriers.

The new American empire, like the British empire of the last century, is just a new mask on the Illuminati Empire. The British Empire never ‘died’ it merely passed on the baton. Yet the turf war between the liberals and conservatives is a childish scrap over whether the new empire will be controlled by the (imagined) left or right.


3 ‘Blair is out to destroy UK’ – Ananova – November 27 2002 -


This is encapsulated in the following passage from an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald,

Today a liberal dissenter such as Gore Vidal, who called his most recent collection of essays on the US The Last Empire, finds an ally in the likes of conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, who earlier this year told The New York Times, “People are coming out of the closet on the word ‘empire’.”


He argued that Americans should admit the truth and face up to their responsibilities as the undisputed masters of the world. And it wasn’t any old empire he had in mind. “The fact is, no country has been as dominant culturally, economically, technologically and militarily in the history of the world since the Roman empire.” 4

Again, the fact that we’re seeing the birth of a new empire is conceded but the real string-pullers behind the curtain are never mentioned.

A telling example of how the left are manipulated to view United Nations run world government (socialist dictatorship) as the solution to American military aggression are the following comments by Australian journalist Margo Kingston, There will be a world government, but not one even pretending to be comprised of representatives of its nation states through the United Nations. The United States will rule, and not according to painstakingly developed international law and norms, but by what is in its interests.


Australia’s choice is to become a non-enfranchised satellite state of the United States - and thus responsible for its aggression and a legitimate target for those fighting to win back countries the Americans take by force, or to fight like hell to save the United Nation’s dream of world government by negotiation.5 Notice the writer condemns a United States run world government but then says it can be countered by a liberal United Nations run world government.


The writer doesn’t understand that the UN and the U.S. are controlled by the same elite. We don’t want a world government, period!


Getting the message through to liberals that the only bulwark against the New World Order is national sovereignty is one of our major tasks. The lefties still wish to believe that the United Nations is a force for good even though it has killed millions in places like Rwanda through brutal ‘peacekeeping’ missions. The United Nations also runs the international sex slave networks. This again sounds bizarre and I haven’t got time to detail it in this chapter.


There is an entire archive of mainstream articles confirming this at the Prison Planet website.6 There can no longer be any doubt. A New World Order has arrived. The media are tacitly admitting it by mislabeling it ‘the new Roman Empire’. Both the left and right wings of this global government are controlled. They merely represent the two arms of the monster.


This New World Order can be blamed for almost all examples of human suffering and repression in the world today and over the last 75 years at least. It only escapes detection by hiding behind the false perception that it is just American imperial expansion.


4 ‘Hail Bush: A new Roman empire’ – Sydney Morning Herald – September 20 2002 -

5 ‘Manifesto for world dictatorship’ – Margo Kingston – Sydney Morning Herald – September 22 2002 -

6 UN Sex Slave Rings archive -


This is an international agenda. We most awake both sides of the political spectrum in order to successfully fight it. The New World Order sustains itself by keeping people asleep and manipulated. We must look these murderers in the eye and face up to the fact that we have a cancer destroying our planet.



War on Iraq

Saddam Hussein may well have had small stocks of chemical and biological weapons in his arsenal because we know from confirmed Senate reports that Donald Rumsfeld was dispatched as Ronald Reagan’s envoy in 1983 to sell them to him. I have already covered how the U.S. government provided Saddam with the weapons they then used as a reason for wanting rid of him. My argument is not centered on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because the war on Iraq was not about weapons of mass destruction and this is admitted by the government itself in its own policy documents.

In the spring of 2002 many experts concluded that the war on Iraq would take place in the summer or at the latest the autumn of that year. Myself and others disputed this in stating that the war had been delayed until at least early 2003. How did we know?

There is an internal fissure within the New World Order between what is known as the Anglo-American establishment and the European bloc. It is a contrast in ideology but not purpose – the ultimate agenda is exactly the same. The European power bloc which is dominated by France and Germany holds that a global government system can only be established without popular uprising in a piecemeal fashion.


Policies and manufactured crises need to be broken down into bite-sized chunks over a long period of time so as to gently acclimatize and lull people into accepting the New World Order. This is best represented by the European Union, which began as ‘just a free trade zone’ and over the course of time has slowly evolved into a giant centralized and un-elected federal super-state.

On the other hand you have the Anglo-American establishment dominated by Britain and America that seeks to forcefully impose the agenda swiftly and with an iron fist. They prefer to blow things up and immediately propose openly fascistic legislation crushing basic rights and liberties. The Europeans dislike this approach because they see it as rash and being more likely to stir up an awakening and a resistance to the agenda.

The Europeans favor Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World approach to conquering humanity, namely by conditioning the program into them. The Anglo-Americans favor the George Orwell 1984 approach, fear and terror to brutalize humanity into compliance. Both methods have been successful at different points in history and judging at what time to play which particular card is a constant headache to the Globalists. This is why there is often bitter infighting between the two factions and this inevitably spills out into the public arena. But that infighting is then spun by the media - leading people to believe the ‘accidental’ view of history over the ‘conspiratorial’ view of history.

The point to stress is that, despite there being two different strategy formats, the final goal is essentially the same. In the case of Iraq we had the Germans and the French supposedly ‘opposing’ the invasion of Iraq and standing in the way of an American led attack. And yet if you took the time to read what the Germans and French were proposing, it was essentially the same as what the Americans and British were ultimately proposing, namely full scale United Nations occupation of the country. The Americans and British wanted make a huge profit from sales of military hardware and equipment via Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Dick Cheney’s Haliburton and of course they wanted full control of the oil fields. The Bush administration is awash with oilmen.

This split within the New World Order was evident at the May/June 2002 Bilderberg meeting. Veteran correspondent Jim Tucker of the American Free Press, utilized his informants within Bilderberg to ascertain that the war on Iraq had been postponed because it was considered to be too much of an impulsive maneuver, The issue of America going to war in Iraq has been delayed, with the White House agreeing to wait at least until next year, instead of late summer or early fall, but many issues simmer at this year’s secret Bilderberg meeting.7


Bear in mind, this was at a time when the media were beating the war drums for a summer invasion. The amount of times these ‘conspiracy theories’ turn out to be accurate geopolitical forecasts is simply amazing!

FIG 10.2

[CAPTION: Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan arrives at the 2002 Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, Virginia.]

Tucker added further details about the role of Donald Rumsfeld in a subsequent report, Rumsfeld is known to have been summoned to reassure the Europeans there would be “no immediate” U.S. invasion of Iraq as had been planned by the White House. He was pressed, but refused to say, that the United States had no plans for future wars.8 And so the timetable was set for a February/March 2003 war, which is precisely the time American and British forces were stationed and ready for a war.


7 ‘Bilderberg Meets’ – Jim Tucker – American Free Press – June 1 2002 -

8 ‘Bilderberg Batters Bush; But Unity remains on NWO’ – Jim Tucker – American Free Press – June 9 2002 -


I repeated time and time again on my website that the war had been delayed while the media reported that the invasion was imminent. Low and behold, the war was delayed until mid-March 2003.

The decision to attack Iraq for the second time was made in September 2000; even before the Bush administration came to power.

This decision emerged from a report by the Project For a New American Century. The PNAC describes itself as,

“a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.”

After reading its proposals, I think they should carry a subtitle of, ‘we have no more enemies so to justify massively increased defense spending let’s invent some’. The organization and its goals are a precise example of the thinking behind the Anglo-American establishment bloc.

The document is entitled ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century’ and was written for Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. The participants of the project include Harvard University, John Hopkins University, the RAND Corporation and the Carnegie Corporation along with several military figures from the U.S. Naval War College.

According to British Labour MP Tim Dalyell,

“This is a blueprint for US world domination—a new world order of their making. These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world. I am appalled that a British Labour Prime Minister should have got into bed with a crew which has this moral standing.”9

The report reads like a laundry list of imperial conquest. It calls for conquest of Iran, conquest of Syria, conquest of Libya, conquest of North Korea, militarization of space, ‘regime change in China’, development of biological weapons to be used in war and a host of other colonial adventures which are summed up in their jargon as being ‘simultaneous major theatre wars’.

FIG 10.3

[CAPTION: Dick Cheney – when he’s not hiding in an underground bunker he’s scripting future wars with fellow PNAC luminaries.]

The most interesting section of the report relates to Iraq. The report states,

The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.10

9 ‘Bush planned Iraq ‘regime change’ before becoming President’ – Neil MacKay – Sunday Herald – September 15 2002 -


This is solid proof that the Bush administration’s real intention behind invading Iraq was to impose its own geopolitical primacy and had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or the moral removal of Saddam Hussein. The report was picked up by the Sunday Herald and a handful of other news outlets but for some strange reason has received no attention in the mainstream American press apart from one watered down ABC News report...

Issues of geopolitical primacy and the occupation of Iraq go hand in hand with American oil interests in the region. Leftists have used the phrase “it’s all about the oil” so many times that they have worn it out. They rarely present much evidence to verify this claim and this is why the phrase has become a cliché in the media. I do have the evidence to make this claim without it being just an empty maxim..

The era of cheap and abundant oil is coming to a close. Many experts predict that demand will outrun supply in 10 years time. Therefore it is inevitable that world oil prices will dramatically rise. The benefit of controlling the world’s biggest oil supplies will be greater than it has ever been. Iraq contains the second largest oil supply on earth, at least 112 billion barrels of proven reserves, one tenth of the world’s supply, with some even suggesting it is even more plentiful than number one in the world, Saudi Arabia.


The script is set for America to turn on its ally in a matter of years because the Saudis have threatened to raise their oil prices and so an extra source of oil is a necessity for America to retain its superpower status. A puppet regime in Iraq would pump three times the amount of oil than current levels, as reported by Newsweek.11 The fall in supply from Venezuela has also hit hard, which is why the CIA have attempted on more than one occasion to overthrow Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

I n April 2001, a report by the Baker Institute for Public Policy revealed the Bush administration’s desperate urge to remove Saddam Hussein from the scene to protect their oil interests. The report was commissioned by U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney.


It read,

The United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/ diplomatic assessments.

The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia, and with key countries in the Middle East, to restate goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies.12

10 ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century - The Project for a New American Century - September 2000 – available at
11 ‘Iraq: It’s the Oil, Stupid’ - Temma Ehrenfeld – Newsweek – September 30 2002 – available at

12 ‘Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis’ – Neil McKay – Sunday Herald – June 10 2002 -

The Baker Institute was set up by former secretary of state under daddy Bush, James Baker, another key man in the arming of Iraq and numerous other criminal activities. The advisors for the report included Kenneth Lay, the disgraced former chief executive of Enron, and a host of top oil company executives. The Council on Foreign Relations was also involved in the proposals.

The document presents a strategy to deploy United Nations weapons inspectors to disarm Iraq of any remaining arms and then to move in and take control of the
oil within three to five years. This is the exact course of events we saw unfold in late 2002 and into 2003. Remember, the dossier was released in April 2001 and so this clearly indicates that September 11 and the much repeated ‘it’s a more dangerous world so we must take out Saddam’ mantra is an outright lie. The Sunday Herald commented that the document,

“fundamentally questions the motives behind the Bush administration’s desire to take out Saddam Hussein and go to war with Iraq.”13

The Sydney Morning Herald of Australia made a similar conclusion,

While the US now presses for “regime change” in Iraq, more than 18 months ago the report repeatedly emphasized its importance as an oil producer and the need to expand Iraqi production as soon as possible to meet projected oil shortages - shortages it said could be avoided only through increased production or conservation in the near-term.14

The Baker report is a smoking gun and tells us that the agenda to commandeer the Iraqi oil fields was decided upon two or more years before the proposed invasion itself. However, the White House still insisted it had not even considered what the consequences in the oil market would be from a war even as they were massing troops.

Mainstream Indian analysts also went public to point out the oil agenda of the invasion of Iraq in September 2002,

Sources said control over Iraq and its oil wealth would allow American firms to manipulate global market prices by deciding on production levels and to keep out countries like India, which is engaged in developing oil fields in that country.15

Even as people like Tony Blair were calling the ‘alleged’ oil agenda a conspiracy theory, the biggest newspapers in the world were reporting,

A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.16

13 ‘The West’s battle for oil’ – Neil McKay – Sunday Herald – June 10 2002 -
14 ‘Oil has always been top of Bush’s foreign-policy agenda’ – Ritt Goldstein – Sydney Morning Herald – July 10 2002 -
15 ‘U.S. plans war to control Iraq’s oil wealth: experts’ - P. Jayaram – Indo-Asian News Service – September 23 2002 –available at

16 ‘In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue’ – Dan Morgan – Washington Post– September 15 2002 -

Former CIA director James R. Woolsey went on the record as saying that the oil windfall would be divvied up fairly between the nations that agreed to support the
war. And so it was no surprise that the first priority after the invasion of Iraq was to secure the oil fields. Talks on this began in secret because, according to the London Guardian,

The companies are reluctant to mention oil in public, fearing it will feed Arab suspicion that it is the main factor in the confrontation with Iraq According to the officials, Mr Cheney’s staff held a meeting in October with Exxon Mobil Corporation, ChevronTexaco Corporation, ConcocoPhilips, Halliburton, but both the US administration and the companies deny it.17

Of course when the plan became public the media put out the blatantly ridiculous spin that control of the Iraqi oil fields was for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Just like the U.N. oil for food program has been to the benefit of the Iraqi people too, killing 500,000 of them. Colin Powell was the main proponent of this supposition and yet when asked if U.S. oil companies would get the contracts for the operation of the oilfields he said, “I don’t have an answer to that question.”18 At the conclusion of the war the Bush administration blocked anyone else from bidding other than oil companies friendly to them. Most of the contracts were handed out to Dick Cheney’s Haliburton. Subsequently, all the establishment talk show hosts began saying, ‘well what if it was about oil? Who cares?’

On the eve of the war the U.S. cited fabricated and unreliable evidence to try and justify a war in the face of mounting anti-war demonstrations.

Colin Powell’s speech to the U.N. on February 5 2003 was described as a watershed because it firmly divided the world into pro and anti-war camps. At this point blatantly demonization-driven stories were emerging suggesting that Saddam Hussein’s spies were running and organizing anti-war protests across the world. Hussein could barely control his small region of dominance and so how his agents were able to leave the country and infiltrate the anti-war movement is baffling.

Powell’s ‘evidence’ consisted of satellite photographs which arrows drawn on pointing to objects that could have been anything, if the satellite photos were even genuine at all. The Secretary of State also outlined that the Islamic terrorist group Ansar al-Islam, which he linked to Hussein, were operating a chemical and poisons factory in north-eastern Iraq.

17 ‘US begins secret talks to secure Iraq’s oilfields’ – Nick Paton – London Guardian – January 23 2003 -,2763,880437,00.html
18 Ibid

When journalists from several different countries visited this location they found out that it was in fact a bakery, It emerged that the terrorist factory was nothing of the kind - more a dilapidated collection of concrete outbuildings at the foot of a grassy sloping hill. Behind the barbed wire, and a courtyard strewn with broken rocket parts, are a few empty concrete houses. There is a bakery. There is no sign of chemical weapons anywhere - only the smell of paraffin and vegetable ghee used for cooking.19 The London Observer concluded that Powell’s charge was ‘cheap hyperbole’.

During his presentation, Powell also held up a British intelligence dossier that claimed to detail Iraq’s links to terrorist organizations. Powell stated,

“I would call my colleagues’ attention to the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities.”20

The dossier, entitled ‘Iraq - its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation’ was revealed just a day after Powell’s speech as a compilation of 6-year-old magazine articles and a graduate student thesis which cited information that was 12-years-old. Four of the report’s nineteen pages were copied verbatim from an Internet version of an article by Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate student from Monterey in California. Downing Street copied the text without even removing the spelling mistakes. The only changes that were made were detailed by U.K. Channel 4 News, In several places Downing Street edits the originals to make more sinister reading. Number 10 says the Mukhabarat - the main intelligence agency - is “spying on foreign embassies in Iraq”.


The original reads:

“monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq.” And the provocative role of “supporting terrorist organizations in hostile regimes” has a weaker, political context in the original: “aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes.”21

FIG 10.4

[CAPTION: The British intelligence dossier cited by Colin Powell

as proof of Iraqi deception – was in fact written by a California graduate student.]

19 ‘Revealed: truth behind US ‘poison factory’ claim’ – Luke Harding – London Observer – February 10 2003 -,6903,892045,00.html

20 ‘UK war dossier a sham, say experts’ – Michael White – London Guardian – February 7 2003 -,2763,890916,00.html

21 ‘Downing St dossier plagiarised’ – Channel 4 News – February 6 2003 -


The British government made itself look even more foolish by refusing to apologize and actually defending the material as accurate. They couldn’t see the harm in passing off a student essay as high-level MI6 intelligence.


Former Labour MP Glenda Jackson commented,

“If that was presented to Parliament and the country as being up-to-date intelligence, albeit collected from a variety of sources but by British intelligence agents..... it is another example of how the government is attempting to mislead the country and Parliament on the issue of a possible war with Iraq. And of course to mislead is a Parliamentary euphemism for lying.”22

Tim Dalyell, the longest serving member of the House of Commons, was actually ejected from the House by presiding officer Michael Martin after stating,

“To plagiarize an out of date Ph.D. thesis and to present it as an official report of the latest British intelligence information, surely it reveals a lack of awareness of the disastrous consequences of such a deception. This is not a trivial leak. It is a document on which is the basis of whether or not this country goes to war and whether or not young servicemen and servicewomen are to put their own lives at risk and indeed thousands, tens of thousands of innocent civilians.”23

The fraud deepened when it was established that the group who actually put the dossier together were not affiliated with MI6 but were a selection of junior aides from the office of Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s propagandist and spin master. Immediately after this story began to circulate and build in intensity, the U.S. upped the terror alert level to orange and Tony Blair stationed troops and tanks at Heathrow airport. The government again terrorized the people into becoming distracted by fear and the story of the fraudulent Iraq dossier never resurfaced again. Compare this to the case of ‘Cheriegate’ where Blair’s wife was revealed to have some second hand links to a conman. This was nothing compared to the dossier story and yet it dragged on for weeks and months.

There were also numerous attempts to link Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein. There is a link between the two and that link is that both of these monsters were initially funded, armed and empowered by the CIA. Apart from that, the two are arch enemies. Hussein is a womanizing hedonist Socialist while bin Laden is a devout fundamentalist. Why would Hussein want to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups that would use them against him?

Like other Middle Eastern rulers, Saddam Hussein has long recognized that Al Qaeda and likeminded Islamists represent a threat to his regime. Consequently, he has shown no interest in working with them against their common enemy, the United States. This was the understanding of American intelligence in the 1990’s. In 1998, the National Security Council assigned staff to determine whether that conclusion was justified. After reviewing all the available intelligence that could have pointed to a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, the group found no evidence of a noteworthy relationship.24

And yet we were subjected again and again to people like Tony Blair, George Bush and Jack Straw telling us there were clear links between Al-Qaeda and Hussein but, unsurprisingly, they ‘couldn’t tell us the nature of those links’ because of national security concerns.

22 ‘UK defends ‘copied’ Iraq dossier’ – BBC – February 7 2003 -
23 ‘Veteran Labor lawmakers walks out of Commons after accusing government of misleading public with Iraq dossier’ –
Ed Johnson – Associated Press – February 10 2003 -

24 ‘Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda Are Not Allies’ – Daniel Benjamin – New York Times – September 30 2002 -


Polls were then released showing that over 50% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were the same person. People have been brainwashed by the media and Hollywood to only think in black and white, to think that there are just good guys and bad guys.

Rohan Gunaratna is an expert on international terrorism at St. Andrews University. He stated,

“I have examined many thousands of documents from Afghanistan I could not find any links whatsoever with Osama bin Laden or al-Qaeda. If there are links, they should prove it. They have an enormous intelligence budget, they have interviewed more than 1,000 al-Qaeda suspects, they have examined thousands of documents, and they have found nothing.”25

Amid empty accusations of a link between Hussein and bin Laden, angry British intelligence officials leaked a top-secret report saying that there were no links. There was, according to the BBC, growing disquiet at the way their work was being politicized to support the case for war on Iraq.26


25 ‘Experts scorn Saddam link to al-Qaeda’ – Gethin Chamberlain – The Scotsman – February 6 2003 -
26 ‘Leaked report rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda link’ – BBC – February 5 2003 -


Powell’s dossier of ‘evidence’, the student essay ‘intelligence report’, the phantom links, the whole façade was an endless stream of bullshit intended to convince people who never look behind the curtain that war was justified. The contention that the biggest military power in the world bombarding a small country to ashes for the second time in twelve years and killing thousands more innocent people was ‘justified’ beggars belief. North Korea has nuclear bombs that can hit America and has publicly threatened to use them. North Korea has a dictator ten times worse than Hussein who has starved a million of his people.


North Korea has a network of concentration camps that hold 200,000 people in horrific conditions. Where is the invasion of North Korea? There isn’t one. There isn’t one because the war on Iraq was nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. It was about advancing the New World Order agenda via the muscle of the United States.

There are 60 plus countries on the PNAC hit list. When the talking heads announce that ‘we’ are going to war just remember that it is not ‘we’ who will be slaughtering children. It is not ‘we’ who will be using depleted uranium ensuring another generation of deformed babies. It is not even ‘we’ who will profit from the takeover of the oil supply.


It is the global elite, notching up another sovereign country on the road to constructing their dark empire of world government.

Back to Contents