A little contextual trip down memory lane:
The Globalists and the Islamists: Fomenting the "Clash of Civilizations" for a New World Order
Part Three: The Muslim Brotherhood – The Globalists' Secret Weapon
I. The Roots of Islamic Terrorism
II. Creating the 'Arc of Crisis'
III. The Muslim Brotherhood Branches Out
IV. Osama Bin Laden: The Early Years
V. Bin Laden In Exile
VI. World Trade Center 1993
VII. Bin Laden's Money Problems
VIII. The Brotherhood Revolution Continues
I. The Roots of Islamic Terrorism
Over the past half-century religion has been in decline in the Western part of the world and in most of the East as well. Spirituality has been traded for materialism as living standards have increased, and popular culture has become almost completely secular as well. Why has the situation been different within the Middle East? How come the Judeo-Christian ethic has eroded, but the Islamic ethic has experienced an apparent resurgence? This study will try to explain how this situation is not something that has occurred by chance and it will offer evidence that militant Islam has been a card played by the global elites of the dominant Anglo-American establishment to achieve the long-term goal of a world government.
Before we turn to the events of September 11 we must first look at the small group of Muslim scholars who developed the ideology, and then as we continue it will become clear how tight-knit and closely connected the movement really is. It is a small movement within the religion of Islam, but it is very influential and its effectiveness must be measured in other ways than simply counting the number of adherents to its philosophy.
As we related in Part One, the British used Islam to legitimize their puppet rulers in Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Palestine after taking over the Middle East in World War I. Because of this Islam was seen by much of the Arab populace as just another part of the corrupt colonial establishment. That is why the legitimate anti-colonial movements, such as those of Nasser, Mossadegh and Bhutto, were primarily secular in nature. When these nationalist movements began to succeed outside of the British sphere of influence the British turned to their Islamic allies to subvert these independent regimes. The Muslim Brotherhood stands out as the most important counter-revolutionary movement of this period in the Middle East, and one of the British-based Globalists' most important strategic assets today.
The Muslim Brotherhood emerged out of Egypt in 1928 to evolve into "the largest and most influential Sunni revivalist organization in the 20th century." It was founded by Hasan al-Banna, the first son of a respected sheik who was also an author and the leader of a local mosque. Hasan was born in 1906 and was brought up immersed in Islam under his father's tutelage. He memorized the Koran and at age twelve he founded an organization called the Society For Moral Behavior. Shortly after he created another group, the Society for Impeding the Forbidden. He was a devout Muslim dedicated to his faith and at age sixteen he enrolled in an Islamic school in Cairo to train to become a teacher. As a teenager Hasan al-Banna also became a member of a Sufi order, the Hasafiyya Brothers' order. He was active in the order, reading all of the Sufi literature he could get his hands on, and he organized a Sufi group, the Hasafiyya Society for Welfare. (1)
In Part One of this study we related several allegations that the Muslim Brotherhood was created, infiltrated, or at least promoted by British Intelligence and/or British Freemasonry. Dr. John Coleman alleges that it was created by "the great names of British Middle East intelligence...", Stephen Dorril writes that the Brotherhood was linked to British Intelligence through dame Freya Stark prior to World War II, and the Shah's regime in Iran considered it to be a tool of British Freemasonry... http://www.redmoonrising.com/Ikhwan/MB.htm
Part Two: The British, the Middle East and Radical Islam
As the American government, led by the Bush Administration, fights its so-called "War On Terror" with plans to invade and overthrow Iraq, America's steadfast ally in this endeavor continues to be the British government of Tony Blair. The following study will take a look at the history of the region that America has become entangled in, a region that used to be, and to some degree still is, almost entirely controlled by Britain. Is this current "War On Terror" truly a war to bring freedom to the region and to promote traditional American ideals, or is it a power-play to solidify global American hegemony? And what does Britain have to gain?
Britain appears to be our greatest ally but it must be understood that British geo-strategists are the masters of political manipulation and subversion. Even as the physical British colonial empire was declining in the first half of this century they were already building the framework for a completely global empire based on the legacy of Cecil Rhodes utilizing the resources of the super-capitalists and financiers of New York and London. These elites may be predominantly British and American in nationality, but they reject democracy and the American Constitution and work against the best interests of British, American and international citizens. By studying the history of the Middle East, and the elitist manipulation of it, we can perhaps predict what is to come after this last final push of the American Empire.
I. Britain Takes the Middle East
II. Britain and Egypt
III. The Overthrow of Iran's First Democracy
IV. The British War Against Nasser
V. Islam Turns Against the West
VI. Afghanistan, Pakistan, the ISI and the BCCI
I. Britain takes the Middle East
As documented in F. William Engdahl's book A Century of War - Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, Britain's interest in the Middle East was piqued when her leaders realized that oil would replace coal as the energy source of the future. At the turn of the century Britain had no first-hand access to oil and was dependant upon America, Russia or Mexico for her supplies. This was quickly understood as an unacceptable situation and through intrigues involving British spy Sidney Reilly and Australian geologist and engineer William Knox d'Arcy Britain was able to secure drilling rights to Persian oil from Persian monarch Reza Khan. D'Arcy paid what amounted to $20,000 cash for rights to tap Persian oil until 1961, with a 16% royalty from all sales going to the Shah. The British company that Reilly persuaded d'Arcy to ally with then became known as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which was a forerunner of the mighty British Petroleum (BP).
However, even with a supply of Persian oil, Britain was losing the race to secure Middle Eastern oil reserves to the Germans. In the years prior to World War I Germany had enjoyed an astonishing economic explosion and this was helped by her alliance with the Ottoman Empire which allowed her access to their vast reserves. In 1889 the Germans worked out an agreement to finance, through Deutsche Bank, a railway from Constantinople into Anatolia, and later in 1899 the final agreement for a complete Berlin-to-Baghdad railway was signed.
The British made sure that this rail link was never completed through the use of her ally Serbia, which stood in the middle of the German alliance that included Austro-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire. World War I is commonly understood as sparked by the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand by Serbian assassins. Serbia did play a key part in World War I, but the conflict was not simply a result of this solitary event. The truth is that World War I was fomented by the British so that they could control oil, foreseen by their geo-strategists as the world's most important emerging resource. (1)
In 1916, at the height of World War I, the British worked out an agreement with France, Italy and Russia known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement that carved up the Ottoman Empire into Western colonies. This secret agreement created the arbitrary boundaries of what are today the countries of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Kuwait. Britain would control the oil-rich Persian Gulf through Iraq and Kuwait and would also receive Palestine and Jordan. France would receive Syria and Lebanon, Italy was promised parts of Anatolia and some Mediterranean islands and Russia was to get parts of Armenia and Kurdistan.
During the war Britain diverted more than 1.4 million troops from the Western Front to fight the Ottomans in the east. While the French lost 1.5 million dead and suffered 2.6 million wounded in the trenches the British gained victory after victory in the Middle East. After the war ended the British continued to maintain over a million troops in the area, and in 1918 the British General Allenby found that he was the de-facto military dictator over almost the entire Arab Middle East. (2)
While T.E. Lawrence was directing the Arab revolt against the Ottomans on behalf of the British he had assured his Arab allies that Britain would honor their desires for independence, but after the war these promises were ignored. During the war the famous Balfour Declaration was also given. It was a letter between Lord Balfour and Lord Rothschild that promised official British endorsement of a Jewish state in Palestine. The plain fact is that the Arabs were cheated, betrayed and used in a British drive to gain control of the region that contained the world's largest known oil reserves.
In the fight against the Ottoman Empire the British gained the support of two important Arab leaders. The first was Hussein I of the Hashemite dynasty, a dynasty that traced a direct lineage back to the prophet Mohammed. He was the ruler of the Hijaz area that included Mecca and Medina and the British hyped his "holy" status to maximize his popular support. The second prominent Arab leader that the British eventually brought into the fold was Ibn Saud, the leader of the tribal Wahhabi sect of central Arabia. Ibn Saud used his British financing to enhance his position as a religious figure and to buy the support of the Bedouins.
After the Ottomans were defeated and the Sykes-Picot and Balfour Agreements were revealed Hussein I realized the treachery that had defeated him and he abdicated his throne. His three sons Ali, Faisal and Abdallah then tried their luck at Arab rule.
Prince Ali took over the Hijaz but lost it in 1925 in his clash with the forces of the British-supported Ibn Saud. The Saudis have ruled Arabia ever since. The biggest mistake Britain made was losing interest in the Saudis and the Arabian deserts, allowing Standard Oil of California to come in and purchase the rights to search for oil in Saudi Arabia for $250,000 in 1933 (3). Since that time the Saudi royal family has enjoyed a very special relationship with the United States.
Prince Faisal, who had worked with T.E. Lawrence and conquered Damascus from the Ottomans, made a claim to rule French-governed Syria in 1920, but the French ended this attempt after just four months. Faisal then retreated to Britain and a year later he was recycled when he, a Sunni prince, was given the predominantly Shia territory of Iraq to govern as king. Faisal I ruled until his death in 1933. His son Ghazi ruled Iraq until he died in 1939, followed by Ghazi's son Faisal II, the last king of Iraq, who was killed in a military coup in 1958.
The Hashemite dynasty continues to this day only through the third of our trio of Hussein's sons. Prince Abdallah was given the land of Trans-Jordan to govern in 1921 and as king he maintained a strong pro-British stance, despite the treachery displayed to his father. Abdallah understood that there was no future in contradicting his masters, and the British used him to check the fury of his own population as the British desire to establish a Jewish state in Israel came into focus. King Abdallah was killed in the Al Aqsa Mosque in 1951, and his sixteen year old grandson Hussein took the throne. King Hussein ruled until his death in 1999, and his son King Abdullah now rules the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
The main point that must be understood from the historical record, as it relates to the main focus of this article, is the cynical manner in which the religion of Islam has been used by the British Empire to further British political goals. In the book by Arab historian Said Aburish, A Brutal Friendship - The West and the Arab Elite, the author identifies three distinct phases of Islam's relationship with the West within the 20th Century. (4)
The first phase, according to Aburish, was the phase immediately after World War I. The Arab leaders had been cheated and betrayed, but they were still dependant upon the British to allow them any type of rule over the Arab masses.
Ibn Saud was the leader of the Wahhabi sect, and the British acknowledged his influence as a religious figure and funded his conquest of all of Arabia.
The Hashemites were the strongest traditional Arab force, but their back was broken when Ibn Saud threw them out of Mecca and Medina. In their "pity" the British then placed Abdallah and Faisal over Jordan and Iraq. These Hashemite princes were outsiders, to say the least, but the British played the religion card for all it was worth and justified their actions to the Arab people through the Hashemite lineage that traced back to Mohammed. Certainly any Arab would be happy to be ruled by a "holy" clan like the Hashemites!
The British used Islam in Palestine as well when, in 1921, they engineered the election of their choice, Haj Amin Husseini, a descendant of Mohammed, to the post of Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. In Palestine almost all of the elite Arab families quickly found it profitable to be pro-British, and the Grand Mufti maintained this stance as well, at least up until 1936 when the imminent establishment of a Jewish Israel forced him to finally support the desires of his people. (5)
Regarding the first phase of Islam's relationship with the West Aburish writes, "All political leadership of the time depended on Islam for legitimacy and all political leaders were pro-British. Islam was a tool to legitimize the rule, tyranny and corruption of Arab leaders. To the West, Islam was acceptable; it could be and was used." ... http://www.redmoonrising.com/Ikhwan/BritIslam.htm
So what have they done for us lately?
The GOP Brotherhood of Egypt
Demonized in the U.S. as radical terrorists, Egypt's Islamists are actually led by free-market businessmen
By Avi Asher-Schapiro, Jan 26, 2012
While Western alarmists often depict Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood as a shadowy organization with terrorist ties, the Brotherhood’s ideology actually has more in common with America’s Republican Party than with al-Qaida. F
ew Americans know it but the Brotherhood is a free-market party led by wealthy businessmen whose economic agenda embraces privatization and foreign investment while spurning labor unions and the redistribution of wealth. Like the Republicans in the U.S., the financial interests of the party’s leadership of businessmen and professionals diverge sharply from those of its poor, socially conservative followers
The Brotherhood, which did not initially support the revolution that began a year ago, reaped its benefits, capturing nearly half the seats in the new parliament, which was seated this week, and vaulting its top leaders into positions of power.
Arguably the most powerful man in the Muslim Brotherhood is Khairat Al-Shater, a multimillionaire tycoon whose financial interests extend into electronics, manufacturing and retail. A strong advocate of privatization, Al-Shater is one of a cadre of Muslim Brotherhood businessmen who helped finance the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party’s impressive electoral victory this winter and is now crafting the FJP’s economic agenda... http://www.salon.com/2012/01/26/the_gop_...singleton/