This being the case it behoves us to examine the expression both in its overt and its covert senses. The overt sense has been given us by Bush Senior himself. He said it means that henceforth no state shall be able to commit aggression against another state without having to face the consequences – precisely what his son is doing now in Iraq. The covert meaning is, I suggest, something quite different. It is full-spectrum dominance of the United States, that is to say, the bipolar world of the Cold War has given way to a unipolar one dominated by a single superpower stretching all the way from Vancouver to Vladivostok.
To be sure, politicians are adroit at coining such phrases when planning to invade another country. The example that springs to mind is President Wilson’s “making the world safe for democracy” to justify declaring war on Germany when the homeland was not in danger, an invasion of America by Germany being of the same order as an invasion of the moon. It is therefore important to ask ourselves what is the real meaning of this expression, what hidden agenda may lie concealed within these four syllables. Bush Senior launched his war on January 16th, 1991, the United Nations ultimatum having expired the day before. Those of you who were at the Regent’s Park Mosque the following Friday will recall an amusing leaflet that circulated there: “Muslims, here is your new Khalifa, George bin Bush”. As it is now a dynasty we can call it the Banu Bush; better still, call it BB, standing for double-dyed bastards. But wanting to be polite, some people do not like to use the word “bastards”, so henceforth if I say BB you will know to whom I am referring.
In a unipolar world a single superpower can act as it likes with impunity, which means that Amir al-Mu’minin Bush could go ahead and bomb Iraq back into the Dark Ages. Only the other day, the Amir’s son shelled Somalia from an American warship stationed offshore. The man is now totally out of control; he is attacking the whole world. He hands out weapons to Fatah to use against Hamas; he provides the Lebanese army with military hardware for use against the Palestinians. He equips an army that when Israel attacked their country did not fire a single shot. When acres of Beirut were being flattened by the Israeli air force did anyone see a single anti-aircraft battery firing at these planes? Did anyone see a single shore battery firing at the Israeli warships bombarding Beirut? There was a rocket fired, but it was fired by Hezbollah.
The choice of expression is a rather odd one because the phrase New Order is an old Fascist slogan. During the 40s, all over the Continent you could see two letters dabbed on walls. They were NO, standing for the same thing in all European languages: Neue Ordnung in German, Novo Ordine in Italian, Nuevo Orden in Spanish, etc. Thus when you saw the capital letters NO on a wall everybody knew what it meant. It meant that a new order had come to replace the decaying political structures the 20th century had inherited from the 19th, like liberal economics and parliamentary democracy, both of them tools of high finance. This may be the reason why “world” has been inserted between “New” and “Order”, so that people would not confuse it with something that might be highly embarrassing for either B. It is possible therefore that what we are confronted with is a piece of mere semantic jugglery. However, the insertion of that single word brings Bush and his order into direct conflict with Islam. The reason for this is that Islam is also a world order. It says so quite explicitly in the Qur’an: “He it is Who has sent down the Qur’an and the religion with truth that He may cause it to overcome any other religion”(9:33;48:28;61:9). There cannot be two world orders, each laying claim to exclusivity in a single world.
Thus from the moment of its proclamation the New World Order was set on a collision course with Islam. Even if Muslims themselves were not aware of this – and I do not recall any mullah quoting this aya at the time – other people certainly were. Peregrine Worthsorne wrote in the Daily Telegraph: “Islam must be destroyed as Carthage was destroyed.” You have to be familiar with Roman history to grasp the full implications of what Worthsorne was saying: Delenda est Cartago. At the conclusion of the Third Punic War, when the Romans took Carthage they sowed the ground with salt so that nothing would grow thereon ever again. They thereby brought down on themselves the Punic Curse, to which I shall allude anon.
Just as there was no room at that time in the Mediterranean for two empires so there is no room now for two universal orders. Of course, one might argue that Bush was talking about politics whilst the Qur’an is about religion. But Islam makes no distinction between politics and religion. Politics is no different from religion: in both, truth comes down from on top and is met by responsibility moving up. This was recognised by Imam Khomeini when he said that Islam is the most political of all religions. If we refer back to the aya just quoted, the word din usually translated as religion means a great deal more than what the Western mind understands by that term. Language is a social tool; if a society have not felt the need for a din then that term will not exist in its lexicon, which means that it cannot be translated. Ultimately, din is untranslatable. What differentiates a din from a religion is totalism; a din is a system that seeks to regulate all aspects of life – economic, moral, legal, social, and including even aesthetics and etiquette; indeed, everything – according to the values of revelation.
Islam is a din, Judaism was a din, Confucianism is a din, Shintoism is a din; Christianity is only a religion. To the Oriental mind, and Islam is an Oriental belief system, it is axiomatic that religion and government are one and the same thing. For them to be different would mean that political action is not subject to the same moral scrutiny as other areas of human behaviour. This is of course the reason why any attempt at dialogue with Christians is an exercise in futility. You are comparing two incompatible things.
When the Prophet departed this world he did not abandon it entirely. For our guidance he left behind him three things. The first thing he left us was the Qur’an; the second thing he left was his example, codified as the Sunna; and the third thing he left was Caliphate, the delegation of power to ensure the observance of Qur’an and Sunna. The fulfillment of the hisba obligation, for instance, presupposes the coercive power of the state. To me it is a matter of indifference whether you call the institution Caliphate or Imamate; on early Islamic coinage the two terms are interchangeable.
In the West political legitimacy is of two kinds: dynastic legitimacy and popular legitimacy. Islam knows only one kind of legitimacy, which does not fall into either category: divine legitimacy. The head of the Islamic state is not a king or a president, he is not even a man; the Head of State in Islam is God. The Caliph is a mere executive whose function it is to execute the provisions of the divinely revealed law. I think this might be what Imam Khomeini had in mind when he said that Islam today is incomplete. In other words, only two-thirds of Islam presently exist. Should Muslims attempt to restore Islam in its original form, i.e. integrally, this must inevitably put Islam on a collision course with the West. Islam, in my opinion, is the only force in the world capable of arresting the relentless march of Anglo-Saxonism across the globe.
Why Anglo-Saxons? It is not because I happen to be Celtic and belong to a race with a long history of hostility to what in Scotland we call the Sassenachs. For the answer to this question we have to look elsewhere, to another race. The Jews have everything: they have the capital, they have the brains, they have the technology, they have the political muscle. There is only one thing they lack and that is the manpower. This is the role of the Anglo-Saxons. It is an alliance which goes back a long way back, all the way to the 17th century, when the English Civil War was financed by the bankers of Amsterdam. There is a convergence between Anglo-Saxon, particularly Protestant, political interests and Jewish finance which for over a hundred years has fed the English messianic complex. Utopian messianism long ago gave way to cynicism, but the alliance remains. The convergence took place during and after the Boer War – Cecil Rhodes was an employee of the Rothschilds – but the origins of it go back to the Commonwealth and Cromwell’s readmitting the Jews in defiance of the decree of 1290 banning them from England; it goes back to the relationship of Cromwell to Manasseh ben Israel. The association has it roots in biblical Protestantism, which in the shape of Gerry Falwell and the Moral Majority continues to yield dividends for Israel. Nor Gerry Falwell alone: the Rev. Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham, who is himself notoriously close to the Zionists, described Islam as “a very wicked and evil religion.” His father, the unofficial chaplain to the White House, spent the night before the Gulf War closeted with Bush Senior in prayer. (Note, please, America is a secular state, but that didn’t prevent Roosevelt from singing “Onward, Christian soldiers” on the deck of the warship in mid-Atlantic on which he met up with Churchill to sign the Atlantic Alliance.) But this is nothing: Bush’s General Boikin, Deputy Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, said that America was waging a war against “the false idol of Islam’s false god”, and “a guy called Satan who wants to destroy us as a Christian army.” Bush himself used the term “crusade” after September 11th.
America, though outwardly the most democratic country in the world with a complex system of checks and balances to prevent any one element in the state becoming preponderant, is in reality run by the giant corporations. Democracy does not exist. All societies are organised pyramidally with an elite, competent or incompetent, at the apex. The leitmotif of 19th-century history is the decline of the aristocracy and the rise of the Jew. The one is the concomitant of the other: an aristocracy of money replaces the aristocracy of blood. No society can function without an elite. In America the elite are the neo-cons. It used to be the WASPS. The Gulf War, even though Saddam’s Iraq was the reverse of Islamic, was the curtain-raiser to a prolonged era of conflict with Islam. With only 5% of the world’s population America controls 44 % of the world’s natural resources. Eight banking corporations manipulate the American economy and 60% of the world economy. World signifies global and global signifies globalisation.
Globalisation is the tendency for firms to establish units worldwide wherever the market is big enough to allow economies of scale to function. This leads to an increase in the number and scale of multi-national enterprises. Multinationals are companies which have production and service facilities in two or more countries. They grow faster than ordinary companies: the budgets of General Motors, Exon, Unilever and IBM exceed the gross domestic product of some of the countries in which they operate. The distinguishing feature of globalisation is that goods, services, labour, capital and ideas are transferred internationally within the firms rather than through external markets. Smooth international coordination of corporations and their macroeconomic policies presupposes the relinquishment of economic and, ultimately, state sovereignty. For example, the role of Ozal as Prime Minister of Turkey was to free the Turkish economy from the last vestiges of Kemalist etatisme so as to convert Turkey into a playground for the multinationals with consequent erosion of Turkish independence. Since all the four companies I mentioned are American, this entails in every country save the US an abdication of sovereignty since decisions are taken in accordance with the firm’s ultimate interests, not the state’s. It might be possible to contend that this applies to American sovereignty no less than other countries. In America state sovereignty and corporate sovereignty are one and the same thing. The President is an employee of the corporate interest.
Here in this country the process of the erosion of sovereignty began during the war. Britain’s gold reserves ran out at the height of the war in 1941. This was followed by uncontrolled American investment in almost every aspect of the national economy. Since 1941 Britain has been, to all intents and purposes, a political and economic satellite of the USA with very restricted room for independent political manoeuvre. The New World Order is a euphemism for hegemony. All hegemons behave in this way.
Which takes me to my next point, the role envisaged in the New World Order for laissez-faire capitalism. I find two speeches Mrs Thatcher made after the Gulf War significant in this context. These speeches were delivered on 17th and 18th June, 1991. The first was to the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations and the second to the Economics Club of New York. Her vision postulates “freedom, democracy and the free market economy” as eternally valid attributes. Thus “freedom and free enterprise are in the ascendant because,” she said, “the West was prepared to back these principles in practice with argument and with arms” – this last a reference to the war just over. So far this is all standard fare, the tired clichés of laissez-faire capitalism framed in the familiar vocabulary of the libertarian political economists of the 19th century. Identically the same arguments were invoked in 1839 to justify aggression against China during the First Opium War because China declined to open her ports to foreign commerce. China’s obduracy infuriated the apostles of freetrade. When in 1793 Lord Macartney was sent to Peking to negotiate a trade agreement with the Chinese Government, the Emperor said to him that in China we have the best food in the world, rice, the best drink in the world, tea, and the best textile in the world, silk, so why trade? China had an autarchic economy. Autarchy is the opposite of globalisation. The West had nothing to offer China except opium. You remember the immortal words of Prince Kung? “Take away your opium and your missionaries and you will be welcome.” People think that the democracies (read plutocracies) declared war on Germany in 1939, but the fact is that the war really began in 1934 when Goering, announcing the Four Year Plan, declared autarchy to be the goal of Germany’s new economic policy. The intention was to isolate the German economy from the fluctuations of international loan capital. No move could have been more calculated to drive the bankers to fury.
Mrs Thatcher’s vision is based on conceit, a conviction of racial superiority, or Manifest Destiny to use the American phrase, that is to say, the manifest destiny, or inherent right, of the Anglo-Saxon race to rule the world. Like the Jews, Anglo-Saxons but above all Americans suffer from a messianic complex, the roots of which have to be sought in the Mayflower psychosis.
What people have been slow to grasp but which should always have been apparent is that, in philosophical terms, the outcome of the Second World War signifies the triumph of the Anglo-Saxon tradition of empiricism over the Continental tradition of idealism. This was to lay the foundation for a post-war consumerist culture based on greed and materialism, after the world had been subjected once again to another devastating war, all in the name of making the world safe for democracy. So brainwashed are people it never seems to have occurred to anyone to ask why we were being asked to make it safe all over again: wouldn’t once be enough? Incidentally, feminism has a role to play within the NWO. Imam Khomeini put his finger on it when he said that the West had converted woman into a factor of consumption – just like the endearing sentimentality of Father’s Day and Mother’s Day in the American calendar
Behind all these lurk the ugly faces of capitalists, financiers and entrepeneurs just as behind Roosevelt and his slogans were the New Dealers and behind them the bankers and the Federal Reserve Board, the real government of America. The phrase “Making the world safe for democracy” is coded language for making it safe for big business in the same way as its successor in the field of political verbiage the New World Order really means unrestricted access to world markets for American capital backed, if necessary, by arms. So behind the NWO lurk the even uglier faces of arms manufacturers, the merchants of death beholden for their profits to American foreign policy. The slogans serve as a pretext for the United States to interfere in another country’s, or another continent’s, internal affairs. Already twice this century America has interfered in European civil wars, once in 1917 and again in 1941, on both occasions to her own inestimable advantage. Both wars were fought on foreign soil, leaving her own industry intact. Mrs. Thatcher said in one of the speeches just quoted that “Western solidarity under American leadership is the only sure foundation of any new world order built to last.” A Pax Americana succeeds the Pax Anglicana, but both are Anglo-Saxon.
Ensuring the stability of client regimes in the Middle East like Kuwait can only escalate the political and social repression of the peoples over whom they rule. Priority will be given to stability, and stability means perpetuating the status quo. Thus regimes already repressive will become even more so. There is a community of interests between the apparatus of internal repression and the apparatus of external control. Internal hegemony is a reflection of external hegemony.
The sub-text in Mrs Thatcher’s speech was how the United States must rely on the support of its allies, and I quote her where she became explicit: “…not only ad hoc military coalitions but a wider alliance encompassing trade and economic relations.” She estimated that an Atlantic community would control about 58 % of the world’s GNP. Such enormous financial clout would encourage other economic groupings in the world to conform to the priorities of the first. The rest of the world would have to adjust to the Atlantic Economic Community in political and economic policies, thereby ensuring the continuation of Anglo-Saxon dominance into the next millennium. Eliminating Germany meant that the Anglo-Saxon powers had eliminated the only obstacle to their scheme for global hegemony. Globalisation signifies not only uniformity but conformity, conformity to the dominant Atlantacist political culture.
Next, and this takes us to one of the basic motives both for the Gulf War and the simultaneous wars waged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Lebanon, for the two, separated by a low-intensity war carried out against Iraq through the sanctions, really form a continuum. America has traditionally used war to bale out the economy. In 1941 the US entered the war because Roosevelt’s New Deal had failed. In 1841 Lincoln set the Civil War in motion because the economy of the North was on the verge of collapse: Fort Sumpter was just another Pearl Harbour. In 1990 the American economy was particularly badly hit by the collapse of communism. Communism had supplied the military/industrial base with its need for an adversary: exit communism, enter Islam. The hunt was on for a surrogate for Russia well before 9/11.
Another aim of the Gulf War was the re-arrangement of the political landscape of the Middle East to incorporate Israel. The re-arrangement cannot be achieved without the collusion of the elites, agent classes installed in power whose function is to preside over their countries’ plunder until one day the last barrel of oil is drawn off and the country reverts to a camel economy. The existence of compliant elites applies no less to Europe. We all live in a prison planet, and the gaolers are the World Bank, the IMF, the World Trade Organisation and their numerous affiliates.
The structure of the post-war order was determined at a series of conferences in 1944 and ‘45. Probably the most crucial of these was Bretton Woods. It unleashed on the world the financial wolf packs of Wall Street, acting now in one combination now in another, but always featuring the same names, the same banks, the same corporations. The role of the Imperial dollar is to act as an international reserve currency. The NWO has an elaborate system of controls. To combat it we must devise strategies to neutralise international control. Islamic banks have been suggested by some as the answer. I regret I cannot share their optimism; far from being the solution, they may even be part of the problem.
The Islamic Bank in London has its headquarters located in a building belonging to the Rothschilds. ’Nough said. Much better to decouple the oil from the dollar although this is what sealed Saddam’s fate. It was his insistence that oil be monetised in euros instead of dollars that led to his taking the short walk to the gallows. Had he pulled it off, other oil-producing countries might have followed suit and the American economy would have been in dire straits. Another strategy could be for ten or twelve Third World countries to default simultaneously, thereby bankrupting the World Bank. Muslims have to break out of their present mindset and their present place of bondage, the currency gaol, and be prepared to liberate the oppressed peoples of the world as they did in the 7th century when they fearlessly took on the Superpowers of that time, Persia and Byzantium. Islam is presently making a powerful global reassertion. Francis Yockey says, “As an idea rises to intensity it absorbs everything else within it and focuses all human effort on to the power struggle.” This sentence can be considered a tafsir of Jihad.
One aspect we have not considered hitherto is that the American empire might disintegrate and along with it Israel. This could happen in two ways: financial rupture or over-expansion. Some attribute the fall of the Rome to the Punic Curse, others to Christianity, which brought the plebs to power, others even attribute it to birth control, which reduced the numbers of the patrician order. Perhaps they may all have been responsible in varying degrees, but what is certain is that America is wanting in the political wisdom that enabled Rome to rule the known world for six centuries. Those of you who have been to Rome and walked along the Via dei Fori Imperiali cannot have missed seeing the beautiful statue of Trajan with the quotation from Tacitus on the plinth, Optimo Imperator – the best of emperors. Trajan had the sagacity to know that once he had conquered the Dacians it was time to stop, to halt the frontier of the empire on the Danube. But greed knows no limits. Goethe said that genius consists in knowing where to stop. America has never known. Manifest Destiny required the genocide of the Plains Indians, allowing the US to expand up to the Pacific. The logical step after that was war with Japan so that America could dominate the Pacific Basin. During WWII America used Britain as an Anglo-Saxon beach-head from which to effect the conquest and subjugation of Europe. The name of that subjugation is NATO, which is expanding exponentially, seemingly unable to stop. America is the new Roman Empire and the European countries are its provinces; as such they partake of its prosperity but pay the price in loss of sovereignty. Expansionism is inherent in the American psyche, and Bush is no Trajan. Yockey, from whom I never tire of quoting, made in 1950 a prophecy of what Europe would be like in a hundred years’ time: “The Europe of 2050 will be essentially the same as that of 1950, viz. a museum to be looted by barbarians; a historical curiosity for sightseers from the colonies; an odd assortment of opera-states; a reservoir of human material standing at the disposal of Washington and Moscow; a loan market for New York financiers; a great beggars’ colony, bowing and scraping before the American tourists.” But for the reference to Moscow there is nothing in the Europe of 2007 to lead us to question the accuracy of Yockey’s prediction.
The Middle East, that dark landscape of dictatorships and the armies and bureaucracies that keep them in power, that sinister terrain prowled by predators who devour one another and debar their populations from access to information and freedom of expression, can it go on for ever, this nightmare in which we live? Is there any hope? Apparently none. The Sykes-Picot System under which the Middle East has been ruled since 1916 is still in place and already in my lifetime has been reinforced twice: in 1945 when the Arab League was formed under British auspices precisely for that purpose, and in 1991 when America and her allies went to war to put one of the lesser Sykes Picot-type boundaries back in place because the disappearance of even one boundary menaces the existence of the remainder.
There may be hope. In this dark landscape the revolution in Iran shines forth as a candescent beacon amidst the otherwise unrelieved blackness. The Shah was brought down by the audiocassette. The invention of the Internet spells death for the Middle Eastern dictators. People cannot now be so easily debarred from accessing information. There is nothing more powerful than truth; in its presence falsehood melts away, for, as the Qur’an (17:81) says, it is in the nature of falsehood always to vanish. Even though the immediate prospect is bleak I take comfort in what the late Algerian writer Malik bin Nabi said, that at the crucial moments of history it is the stock of ideas, not of weapons, that counts. The clearest proof of this is Islam itself, which, at what was perhaps the most decisive moment in the history of the world, first overthrew the commercial oligarchy of Mecca, then moved out of the Peninsula to defeat the Superpowers of the time; at Qadisiyya Islam achieved in one day what had eluded the Roman and Byzantine empires for centuries, the elimination of the Persian Empire.
The past can never overcome the future, it can only delay its advent.
