Archive

Archive for June, 2009

US Bases Around The World: How Long Can The Empire last?

By Stephen Lendman

US air bases around Iran are targets for Iranian retaliation

Besides waging perpetual wars, nothing better reveals America’s imperial agenda than its hundreds of global bases – for offense, not defense at a time the US hasn’t had an enemy since the Japanese surrendered in August 1945.

So when they don’t exist, they’re invented as former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles W. Freeman, Jr., suggested in a May 24, 2007 speech to the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs:

“When our descendants look back on the end of the 20th century and the beginning of this one, they will be puzzled. The end of the Cold War relieved Americans of almost all international anxieties.” As the world’s sole remaining superpower, “We did not rise to the occasion.”

“We are engaged in a war, a global war on terror, a long war, we are told….How can a war with no defined ends beyond the avoidance of retreat ever reach a convenient stopping point? How can we win (any war let alone the hearts and minds of millions) with an enemy so ill-understood that we must invent a nonexistent ideology” for justification.

In his 2006 book, “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic,” Chalmers Johnson discussed the known number of foreign US bases by size and branch of service. According to the Department of Defense’s Base Structure Report (BSR) through 2005, it totaled 737 but likely exceeds 1000 today with so many new ones built since then – some known, others secret and always others planned.

Johnson also highlighted the fallout – unacceptable noise, pollution, environmental destruction, expropriation of valuable public and private land, and drunken, disorderly, and abusive soldiers committing crimes that include rape and murder that often go unpunished under provisions in US-imposed Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs).

An excerpt from his book reads:

“Once upon a time, you could trace the spread of imperialism by counting up colonies. America’s version of the colony is the military base; and by following the changing politics of global basing, one can learn much about our ever more all-encompassing imperial footprint and the militarism that grows with it….even more than in past empires, a well-entrenched militarism (lies) at the heart of our imperial adventures.” To such an extreme that “each year we spend more on our armed forces than all others nations on Earth combined” to garrison troops “in more than 130 countries.”

The Pentagon lists them in its annual Base Structure Report, but “its official count of between 737 and 860 overseas installations is incomplete” because excluded are numerous secret ones – for espionage, unofficially shared with host countries, or other reasons not disclosed.

The bases reflect “force projection” for global dominance and are positioned to strike any nation that might challenge it, friend or foe. But they come at a great cost – well over $1 trillion annually with all homeland, foreign, and other budget categories included. According to Johnson, a far greater one as well, the same dynamic that doomed past empires unwilling to change – “isolation, overstretch, the uniting of local and global forces opposed to imperialism, and in the end bankruptcy” as well as the end of democracy, loss of personal freedoms, and tyranny.

During WW II, Brits complained that GIs were “overpaid, overfed, oversexed, and over here.” Despite the war, some called it the US “occupation,” and UK historian David Reynolds discussed it in his book, “Rich Relations: The American Occupation of Britain, 1942-1945.” He borrowed the word from George Orwell’s December 1943 comment that “It is difficult to go anywhere in London without having the feeling that Britain is now Occupied Territory.”

Today, millions in countries globally feel the same, and with good reason. Even at peace, America’s presence is intrusive, hostile, and at the expense of the host country populations.

A new book is now out titled “The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle against US Military Posts,” a collection of important articles on America’s worldwide empire and military presence that enforces it.

It’s edited by Catherine Lutz, Brown University Professor in the Department of Anthropology, Watson Institute for International Studies with a forward by Cynthia Enloe, Clark University Research Professor, Department of International Development, Community and Environment and Women’s Studies.

Enloe dispels some common myths in her forward:

– about Americans believing that foreign bases benefit the host country populations;

– the notion that other countries request our presence;

– that the US military is the most “civilized” in the world, and

– their presence is for other nations’ security “in an age of an allegedly diffuse (and ill-defined) ‘global terror,’ (that) trumps any other ‘lesser’ concerns.”

Contributors to “The Bases of Empire” reflect a powerfully opposite point of view as well as Enloe in her forward and Lutz in her detailed introduction, discussed below.

Introduction – Bases, Empire, and Global Response

Lutz cites the “unprecedented….global omnipresence and unparalleled lethality of the US military, and the ambition with which it is being deployed around the world.” Its presence shows that America stands “able and willing to control events in other regions militarily” and proves it through numerous foreign wars and other hostile interventions, directly or through proxies.

Citing data from DOD’s 2007 Base Structure Report (BSR), she states:

“Officially, over 190,000 troops and 115,000 civilian employees are massed in 909 military facilities in 46 countries and territories. There, the US military owns or rents 795,000 acres of land, and 26,000 buildings and structures valued at $146 billion.”

However, the numbers are misleading as they exclude the massive base and troop presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, former Soviet republics, and Warsaw Pact countries as well as unknown numbers of secret facilities in numerous other nations. They consist of three types:

– Main Operating Bases (MOBs) like the Iraq Balad Air Base housing 30,000 troops, 10,000 contractors, and covering 16 square miles plus another 12-square mile “security perimeter.” MOBs are large and permanent, have extensive infrastructure, command and control headquarters, accommodations for families in non-war zones, hospitals, schools, recreational facilities, and nearly anything available in a typical US city.

– Forward Operation Sites (FOSs) that are also major installations but are smaller than MOBs, and

– Cooperative Security Locations (CLSs) that are small, austere, called ‘lily pads,” – to preposition weapons, munitions, and modest numbers of troops.

Lutz highlights the fallout:

“The environmental, political, and economic impact of these bases is enormous and, despite Pentagon claims that the bases simply provide security to the regions they are in, most of the world’s people feel (not at all) reassured by (their) global reach,” and with good reason.

Farm and public land is expropriated for their use. Toxic pollution is enormous as well as extensive environmental damage. Noise levels from round-the-clock aircraft are intolerable, and around numerous bases America is at war. It also imprisons and tortures thousands, props up despotic rulers for its own advantage, and virtually holds the entire planet hostage to its extremist agenda.

Lutz says this book describes US militarism globally and campaigns to hold America accountable for the “damage and to reorient (host) countries’ security policies in other, more human, and truly secure directions.”

For its part, America occupies the world, reflects a hostile presence, trains about 100,000 local forces in 180 countries as partners, and turns a blind eye to human rights abuses, by its own troops and those of host nations.

Besides its presence in fixed bases, the Pentagon is involved in “jungle, urban, desert, maritime, and polar training exercises across wide swathes of landscape” – always intrusive and often provocative as in the Philippines. After it was forced to give up its bases in 1992, US troops remained in the country despite strong popular opposition and the Philippine constitution prohibiting the basing of foreign forces. No matter, US military and civilian personnel lobby to change local laws to accommodate America’s access.

Laws are there for legitimate reasons, one of which is the focus of this book – the impact and costs that a foreign presence has on host countries’ people. Lutz explores why it’s there, how it’s configured, popular myths, and “the global movement to push back or expel (it) altogether.”

The Purpose of US Bases

They reflect empire, an aim to dominate everywhere, a sense of “racial, cultural, or social superiority,” and a success when “wealth is extracted from peripheral areas and redistributed to the imperial center.”

The Pentagon claims they’re in place to:

– defend the homeland with a forward or global presence; and

– provide other nations with security.

In fact, they’re to control trade, resources, local supplies of cheap labor, and political, economic, and social life of host countries. They also force them to support American imperialism, including foreign wars despite harmful fallout to local populations.

A Short History of US Bases

– they go back to colonial America, then grew to a “frontier project” to remove Native Indians for a new nation with European settlers;

– in 1938, 14 foreign bases existed; post-WW II “an astounding 30,000 (large and small) installations” were in about 100 countries; by 1948, it was 2000;

– besides creating America coast-to-coast and the 1846 – 48 Mexican war, US history reflects three imperial periods:

(1) the 1898 Spanish-American war conquest and occupation of foreign territory and acquisition of bases in them;

(2) World War II and its Cold War aftermath established the “bulk of the US basing system;” even so, from 1947 – 1990, America was asked to leave France, Yugoslavia, Iran, Ethiopia, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Vietnam, Indonesia, Peru, Mexico, and Venezuela; in the 1990s and later, the Pentagon was forced out of the Philippines, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Puerto Rico’s island-municipality Vieques, Uzbekistan, and Ecuador, and decided voluntarily to leave elsewhere;

(3) post-9/11 militarism under George Bush neocons advanced the goal of “full spectrum dominance” over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming power to fight and win global wars against any adversary, including with nuclear weapons preemptively.

Common Myths about US Foreign Bases

Why do sovereign nations and the US public tolerate them? One explanation is that “the bases are naturalized or normalized, meaning that they are thought of as unremarkable, inevitable, and legitimate,” and militarism supports these notions as the way to bring order to a dangerous world.

The Pentagon argues their legitimacy on these grounds:

– “utilitarianism and realism” as follows:

(1) to secure America by deterring attacks and preventing or removing military challenges;

(2) overseas forces represent America’s first line of defense; and

(3) “potential security challenges in Asia” require American intervention to prevent or intervene to “restore order.”

Strategic language justifies them to project power anywhere in the world and “contend with (any) uncertainty (regarding America’s) security challenges.”

Bases also “serve the national economic interests of the United States, ensuring access to markets and commodities needed to maintain the American standard of living….” Also to react to any threat, maintain trade, keep commerce routes open, and assure the dollar remains the world’s dominant reserve currency. In a word, to have America’s footprint everywhere with a military presence for enforcement.

US forces are a “visible expression of the extent of America’s status as a superpower” and its goal to keep it that way unchallenged. It suggests that more bases are better and a way to project a visible presence everywhere or close by.

A second argument “sees them as positive expressions of American character, and particularly its humanitarian ethos.” The Pentagon portrays itself as a benefactor, a liberator, and helper on the scene at times of natural or other disasters. We claim bases are “gifts to other nations, both as defense sites and as wealth generators. They represent American altruism and sacrifice” when, in fact, they’re for hardline dominance intolerant of opposition, national sovereignty, democratic freedoms, and social justice.

They also fail on their own terms. Instead of providing safety and security, they incite antagonism, opposition and blowback against an American occupier and enemy. Yet they proliferate on the notion that “humans are naturally violent and that war can be a glorious and good venture.” It’s also hugely profitable for the defense establishment and related industries, energy and technology to name two.

The World Responds

“Social movements have proliferated around the world in response to the empire of US bases.” For some, just their presence is an affront to national sovereignty and pride. Others reject their purpose – aggressive wars, continued violence, and all the other above-cited fallout wherever they’re located. Globally, these bases “represent a massive injustice” to host nations and communities where they’re located.

Despite providing jobs for local workers, wages are poor, benefits few if any, and most Pentagon dollars flow to large military contractors, other major US corporations, and selected local business elites. Ordinary people are exploited and entirely left out, especially in developing countries, hence their opposition to militarism and foreign occupation.

“With the end of the Cold War, the central pretext for most US bases evaporated, and calls for their return were renewed.” In 1991, a successful Philippine movement ousted them with a post-Ferdinand Marcos constitution declaring:

“foreign military bases, troops or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose.”

In 2003, sustained direct action campaigns and political lobbying also succeeded in Vieques, Puerto Rico, in part because naval activities caused environmental and health damage – a core issue wherever US bases are located.

“The Bases of Empire includes 10 articles by different writers, divided in two parts: Mapping US Power and Global Resistance.

Part I includes:

– Joseph Gerson’s “US Foreign Military Bases and Military Colonialism: Personal and Analytical Perspectives;”

– John Lindsay-Poland’s “US Military Bases in Latin America and the Caribbean;”

– David Heller and Hans Lammerant’s “US Nuclear Weapons Bases in Europe;” and

– Tom Englehardt’s “Iraq as a Pentagon Construction Site.”

Part II includes:

– Roland Simbulan’s “People’s Movement Response to Evolving US Military Activities in the Philippines;”

– Katherine McCaffrey’s “Environmental Struggle after the Cold War: New Forms of Resistance to the US Military in Vieques, Puerto Rico;”

– Ayse Gil Altinay and Amy Holmes “Opposition to the US Military Presence in Turkey in the Context of the Iraq War;”

– Kyle Kajihiro’s “Resisting Militarism in Hawaii;” and two other articles discussed below.

David Vine and Laura Jeffrey’s “Give Us Back Diego Garcia: Unity and Division among Activists in the Indian Ocean.”

Diego Garcia is an 84-square mile British-controlled Indian Ocean island in the Chagos archipelago, lying strategically half way between Asia and Africa, and the reason the Pentagon wants it.

It was home to indigenous Chagossians, British citizens, before being expelled between 1967 – 1973 to let America have their island-state as a military base. In flagrant denial of their human rights, the were mass-exiled to Mauritius and Seychelles, 1300 miles away, where they remain in abject poverty and despair. The population had no say, and those who objected were lied to and told they had no choice because their removal was “legal” under colonial rule.

In their new home, life was hellish. They were consigned to a society foreign to their simple ways and weren’t able to adjust. On Diego Garcia, they had their own home, grew their own food, fished, and worked on plantations. In exile, they needed jobs to survive but couldn’t get them. By the mid-1970s, most were unemployed, impoverished and began to die, but the British Foreign Office and High Commission told them to let the Mauritius and Seychelles governments handle it.

Chagossians are UK citizens entitled to the same rights as other Brits, but all they got was 1000 pounds (around $1600 today) in exchange for renouncing their right to return, agreed to on a document they couldn’t read.

The history of this episode was hidden until the 1990s when declassified documents were found in the National Archives at Kew in London. They proved a conspiracy between Britain and America that the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) Article 7 calls a “deportation or forcible transfer of a population (and) and crime against humanity.”

Britain’s action also violated the UN Charter’s Article 73 that obliges a colonial government to obey its “sacred trust” to protect the human rights of its people. Instead, America and the UK engaged in cover-up and deception that continued for a decade and went to the highest levels of both governments. Involved were prime minister Harold Wilson and Queen Elizabeth along with presidents Johnson, Nixon and others.

Everything was hidden, including financial kickbacks Washington made that were concealed from Congress and Parliament. That changed once the truth came out. On November 3, 2000, the British High Court stunned the government, cited the Magna Carta, annulled the original deportation order, and effectively ruled that British subjects were entitled to go home. However, the victory was short-lived as a year later Chagossians were back in the High Court seeking compensation for their ordeal.

This time a hostile judge called their case “unmeritorious” and denied their claim. Three months later, the Foreign Office minister responsible for Chagos sent an “order-in-council” to the Queen for her automatic approval that overturned the High Court 2000 victory, banning Chagossians from ever returning home.

Nonetheless, they pursued their case, again before the High Court. On May 11, 2006, a damning verdict condemned the expulsion order as “repugnant” and overturned the Blair government’s “order-in-council.” Thus far to no avail, yet Chagossians still fight for their right of return and an end to their decades-long plight.

They held an April 18, 2009 meeting, met with the Royal Commonwealth Society in late May, made their case, but it remains unresolved. The UK Chagos Support Association said at the time:

“the original people of Chagos are dying of broken hearts and spirit. They are still waiting for justice to be done and it seems like this is dragging until all the people who really have the right to fight for the cause no longer have a voice. It has been 45 years and we believe it is time that justice is done and peace is found.” Thus far, Britain and Washington won’t agree. Imperial considerations take precedence over all else.

Kozue Akibayashi and Suzuyo Takazato’s “Okinawa; Women’s Struggle for Demilitarization.”

Okinawa is Japan’s southern-most and poorest prefecture. It’s also home to dozens of US military bases since 1945. In his book “Nemesis,” Chalmers Johnson cited a history of abuse – from 1998 – 2004 alone, 2024 reported crimes and accidents in which US forces were involved. Only one led to a court-martial, 318 others to administrative discipline, and the rest were absolved, yet they involved robberies, assaults, rapes and reckless homicides. Okinawa’s women and girls suffered most.

Akibayashi is a researcher at the Institute for Gender Studies at Toyko’s Ochanomizu University. Takazato is an activist fighter for women’s rights, especially against the threat of US military personnel-committed rape and sexual assaults. She’s also a City Council member of Okinawa’s capital, Naha, and helped found Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence and the Rape Emergency Intervention Counseling Center of Okinawa, established after three US Marines gang-raped a 12-year old girl on September 4, 1995.

After Japan surrendered in 1945, America wrote its constitution, and occupied the country ever since, now with 88 bases in a nation smaller than California. Thirty-seven are on Okinawa, a tiny sliver of land about the size of a large US city, so it’s easy to understand why its people are long-suffering and justifiably angry.

They’ve been practically pushed into the Pacific to accommodate America’s occupation, forced to relinquish their most valued real estate, and put up with over six decades of all the above-cited abuses. Their greatest outrage is over the SOFA’s article 17 covering criminal justice. It states:

“The custody of an accused member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component (shall) remain with the United States until he is charged.”

It means when US personnel commit crimes, including rape and murder, Japanese investigative authorities have no exclusive access to suspects until they’re indicted in court. That alone hamstrings investigations enough to make prosecutors reluctant to press charges because they can’t get enough evidence for trials. Further, the longer things drag out, the easier it is for the Pentagon to whitewash crimes and transfer guilty parties to new locations, far removed from Okinawa.

The most serious incident was the above-cited 1995 rape. The 12-year old girl involved was also beaten, then left on a beach after which the three Marines returned to their base in a rented car. In October, 85,000 Okinawans protested. They demanded Japanese and American authorities address the issue after the Pentagon initially refused to hand over suspects to Japanese police. Usually they never do anywhere, but this case was an exception. Because of political pressure, the Marines were arrested, tried in a Japanese court, convicted and sentenced to prison terms for their crime – seven years for two of them and six and a half for the other.

This case highlights what Okinawans and other people have endured for decades. SOFAs let the Pentagon run its affairs unaccountable to host country laws, including on Okinawa. The result everywhere is that US personnel get away with rapes, drunken brawling, muggings, drug violations, reckless driving and related accidents, arson, and criminal homicide, especially in host countries with non-white populations – abuses unchanged for decades on Okinawa.

As a result, Akibayashi and Takazato concluded:

– “Integral elements of misogyny infect military training….The military is a violence-producing institution to which sexual and gender violence are intrinsic….The essence of military forces is their pervasive, deep-rooted contempt for women, which can be seen in military training that completely denies femininity and praises hegemonic masculinity,” and

– “The OWAAMV (Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence) movement illustrates from a gender perspective that ‘the protected,’ who are structurally deprived of political power, are in fact not protected by the militarized security policies; rather their livelihoods are made insecure by these very policies.” Gated bases don’t deter violence outside them and result in local populations being oppressed and denied their rights when it happens.

America’s “Bases of Empire” menace world societies. Okinawan women and young girls bear testimony to how grievously.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

A Minute’s Silence For The Death Of Common Sense, Please.

Just when you think our so called ‘elected representatives’ can’t embarass us anymore, they tend to prove us wrong.

The Sindh Assembly has this morning held a minute’s silence for Michael Jackson’s sad demise. Yes, you can read that again.

Our army is busy fighting a bitter war against foreign funded terrorists, over 3 million of our people have been made homeless and we’re facing what could potentially be the worst crisis in our history if not dealt with properly. Our politicians on the other hand just cannot grasp the seriousness of the situation.

The Federal Information Minister feels it important to entertain himself with a $15,000 lapdance from an Indian hooker while on a begging round. Is begging that stressful? Maybe he should learn something off his President who doesn’t seem to mind it at all.

When did the president or any senior members of his team last visit the affected areas to show solidarity with our people? Why have they never bothered turning up and paying respect at the homes of our fallen soldiers? What have they contributed out of their own pockets towards caring for our internal refugees?

The point isn’t whether Jacko was a global superstar or that he had reportedly converted to Islam – Michael Jackson had absolutely f*ck-all to do with Pakistan, its history, its culture, its language, its people and its politics. This is the Provincial Assembly of Sindh, Pakistan, not the California State Assembly. Or are we now officially the 51st state?

What next? Will Muttahida’s gun toting ‘activists’ and PPP Jayalas forcefully shut all businesses in Karachi for a shutter-down strike next time Britney shaves her head? Or will we have a national day of mourning when Paris Hilton’s little pooch dies?

Why have we as a nation become so passive about these incompetent crooks who are turning us into a joke? And not a funny one either.

Sinister Sites – Israeli Supreme Court

The Israel Supreme Court is the creation of one elite family: the Rothschilds. In their negotiations with Israel, they’ve agreed to donate the building under three conditions: the Rothschilds were to choose the plot of land, they would use their own architect and no one would ever know the price of its construction. The reasons for those conditions are quite evident: the Supreme Court building is a Temple of Masonic Mystery Religion and is built by the elite, for the elite.

Built in 1992, the Israel Supreme Court sits in Jerusalem, in front of the Knesset (Israeli legislature). Its peculiar architecture has earned critical praise due to the architects’ opposition of old versus new, light versus shadow and straight lines versus curves. Almost all critics and journalists have however omitted to mention the blatant occult symbols present all over the building. Masonic and Illuminati principles are physically embodied in numerous instances, proving without a doubt who runs the show in there.
House of the Rothschilds

The Rothschild family is an international dynasty of Germans of jewish descent who established a worldwide banking and finance operation. The offsprings of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812) have spread all over Europe and became major actors in the social, political and economic life of the continent. By knitting close ties with the elite of England, Austria, France and Italy, the Rothschilds became a hidden force in most political events of the last centuries. Alternative historians say they are part of the infamous 13 bloodlines of the Illuminati, along with the Rockefellers and the Duponts.

The Rothschilds are one of the originators of the Zionist movement and the most active actors in the creation of the state of Israel. James A. de Rothschild financed the Knesset, Israel’s main political building. Right in front of it sits the Israeli Supreme Court, donated by another member of the dynasty: Dorothy de Rothschild

Painting at the entrance of the Supreme Court – The Rothschilds with Shimon Perez and Isaac Rabin

In the same general area of Jerusalem we can therefore find the Knesset and the Supreme Court, built by the Rothschilds and, following a perpendicular layline, several blocks away, sits the Rockefeller Museum (other elite family). You might start to understand who owns this area now.

Jerry Golden wrote several years ago on the Israeli Supreme Court, appropriately pointing out its occult concepts. When you study those types of buildings, you quickly realize that the same themes inevitably reappear: illumination, pyramid, ascent, the number 13 or 33 , phallic/yonic symbols, etc. This building has it all and more.
Path to Illumination

A journey through the Supreme Court is in fact a symbolic course towards Illumination. The ultimate “goal” of the journey is to reach the top of the pyramid which is located on the roof of Supreme Court, atop of an area where the “holy of holies” would be in a Jewish Temple.

On each side of the pyramid’s apex is a hole representing the “All-Seeing Eye” of the masonic Great Architect (see the reverse of the Great Seal of the United States).

Pyramid with All-Seeing Eye

Let’s go through the path of the “profane” to reach illumination.
Darkness to Light Stairway

One who enters the Supreme Court finds himself in a dark area, in front of a stairway leading to a source of light.

By climbing those stairs, the visitor gradually leaves the depths of darkness to finally reach glorious sunlight. There are exactly three times 10 steps, totaling 30. They represent the 30 first degrees of Freemasonry, where the profane is gradually taken from the depths of material life (darkness) to wisdom and illumination (light). We know that Freemasonry comprises a total of 33 degrees and we’ll later see where we can find those last three degrees in the structure. On the right side of the stairs are old rocks reminiscent of walls of ancient Jerusalem while on the left is a smooth and modern wall. This represents the timeless nature of occult teachings, who have been transmitted since ancient times to this day.

Once having climbed the stairs the visitor can admire a great view of Jerusalem. In a symbolic way, the enlightened person gained “spiritual sight”.

View of Jerusalem after climbing the stairs of Illumination

Embedded on the floor is a layline, guiding the traveler to the entrance of the library, which is conveniently placed right under the pyramid.

The Library

Second Floor of Library

The library is divided in three levels, symbolically representing the last three degrees of Freemasonry (31st, 32nd and honorary 33rd) . The first level is reserved for lawyers, the second is reserved for judges and the books on the third level can only be read by retired judges. The library’s way of functioning – where some information is the exclusive privilege of a selected few – directly correlates with the functioning of occult orders, where teachings of a certain degree can only be given if the initiates have successfully cleared the previous degrees.

The 3 levels of the library

The library contains legal, judicial, philosophical and spiritual works. There is no doubt that the “reserved” books contain a wealth of esoteric knowledge. Right above the higher level of the library (representing the 33rd level of Masonry) is the base of the pyramid. This is where Freemasonry symbolically ends and the hidden order of the Illuminati begins.

View of the pyramid from inside

Right under the apex of the pyramid, on the floor, we can find sacred geometry patterns.

Sacred Geometry

Jerry Golden has mentioned that a crystal is embedded right in the middle of the pattern, right under the eye of the pyramid. What does it signify?
Judges Bringing Illumination

The entrances of the courtrooms are said to resemble ancient Jewish tombs. The holes atop the doors are meant to permit the soul to leave the room. Also notice the contrast between old and new.

The prison cells, the courtroom and the judge’s quarters are placed one on top of the other, symbolizing the threefold nature of the world. The inmates are stuck in cells, symbolizing the prison of the lower material world. The courtrooms, placed right over the prison cells, represent the “higher world” where divinity gets in touch with humanity:

Courtroom

In the courtrooms, the judges are illuminated by a natural source of light. So the judges, hearing the pleads of the masses sit there with divine light constantly shining upon them. After the hearings, the judges retire to their quarters, situated right over the courtroom. They symbolically “ascend” to the divine world. When a decision is taken, they “descend” to bring illumination to the lower world.
Fertility Symbol

Outside the courtrooms is a stairway leading to a lower level. No occult temple would be complete without those next two features.

In the middle of the stairway is the shape of a vesica piscis (representing female genitals) “penetrated” by a column (phallic symbol). This is an obvious fertility symbol, a union of the male and female principles. Numerous occult temples insert a fertility symbol in their lower floor (see the Manitoba Legislative Building or Washington Capitol). But wait, there’s usually a rotunda along with the

fertility symbol. Oh, there it is.

Some occult buildings hide the star of Ishtar (fertility symbol) at the center on the lower rotunda. Is hidden there?

Outside

The exterior of the Supreme Court contains loads of symbolic features. Just follow the “Dorothy de Rothschild” stone to see where it leads you.

Obelisk

This is the Dorothy de Rothschild grove. The obelisk is the most commonly used and the most blatant occult symbol used throughout the world. In ancient Egypt, the cult of this phallic symbol was associated with the god Osiris, who was cut in 13 pieces by Seth. Isis traveled far and beyond to retrieve all of Osiris’ body parts and was successful, except for one body part, the penis, which was swallowed by a fish. “The lost phallus” is thus representative of male energy, and is almost always placed (as in this case) inside a circle, which represents female genitalia and energy. The obelisk in the middle of a circle represents the sexual act and the union of opposite forces. In our modern world, obelisks are found on nearly all important landmarks, and thus became and symbol of the occult elite’s power.

Courtyard

The courtyard has beautiful zen-like feel. A source of water is constantly bubbling and streaming through a narrow path towards a strange stone. Official Supreme Court documentation say that the courtyard is a physical representation of the verse from Psalm 85:11:

“Truth springs from the earth, And righteousness looks down from heaven”

The judge’s offices overlook the courtyard, so they are symbolically “looking down from heaven”. The stream of water goes straight and ends up right under a strange and enigmatic stone.

What is this thing and why is “truth who sprung from earth” leading towards it? The stone’s polished surface reflects a distorted image of the courtyard. What does it represent?

Trampled Cross

At the center of the parking facilities are pathways shaped like Christian cross. Jerry Golden has mentioned that this cross has been specifically placed to be trampled on by visitors. He is most probably right. In a building where spiritual symbolism reigns supreme, there are effectively little chances that the layout of those pathways haven’t been thoroughly thought out by the architects. In other words, this can’t be just a coincidence. The visitors have to go down the stairs – symbolically “descend” to lower spheres – to reach the cross. As you might have noticed, the importance of the act of ascending and descending in this building is very important. This is not an exception.

Occult secret societies have historically been at odds with the Christian church who repeatedly persecuted and accused them of all sorts of heresies. During the Middle-Ages the Knights Templar (ancestors of Freemasonry) have been accused by the Archbishop of Canterbury of numerous anti-Christian deeds, including “trampling the Cross under foot” during their initiation processes. Are they poking back at Christianity with this symbol?

Pomegranates

Those pomegranates lying on the floor might seem extremely insignificant for the average onlooker. They however hold a special signification for students of the Mysteries and of Freemasonry.

“Among the ancient Mysteries the pomegranate was also considered to be a divine symbol of such peculiar significance that its true explanation could not be divulged. It was termed by the Cabiri “the forbidden secret.” Many Greek gods and goddesses are depicted holding the fruit or flower of the pomegranate in their hands, evidently to signify that they are givers of life and plenty. Pomegranate capitals were placed upon the pillars of Jachin and Boaz standing in front of King Solomon’s Temple; and by the order of Jehovah, pomegranate blossoms were embroidered upon the bottom of the High Priest’s ephod”
-Manly P. Hall, Secret Teachings of All Ages

As stated by Hall, pomegranates were placed on top of the two pillars standing in front of Solomon’s Temple. If you have minimal knowledge of Masonic teachings, you know that the Temple of Solomon and the pillars named Jachin and Boaz are of an utmost importance.

“The capitals were enriched by pomegranates of bronze, covered by bronze net-work, and ornamented with wreaths of bronze; and appear to have imitated the shape of the seed-vessel of the lotus or Egyptian lily, a sacred symbol to the Hindus and Egyptians.”
-Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma

We know that the Masons patiently look forward to the day they’ll rebuild the Temple of Solomon on its original grounds – Temple Mount, Jerusalem. Are those pomegranates waiting to be placed on the pillars of the next Temple?
To Conclude

This article barely scratches the surface of the occult symbolism of the Israeli Supreme Court. It is however clear that the building’s architecture carries important symbolism relating to spirituality and the attainment of illumination. There are no religious monuments relating to Judaism or any organized religion. The Supreme Court is a temple of the Mysteries, which are an amalgamation of pagan rituals interlaced with an esoteric interpretation of the Scriptures. The teaching of the Mysteries is reserved to members of occult secret societies, which the Rothschilds are obviously part of. The esoteric meaning of this building is concealed from the public but it unmistakably reveals to the initates who possesses real power in the world.

Why Pakistan Will Never Catch Terror Leader Alive

The mess in Pakistan’s western areas is not just a battle with religious extremism. A larger part is a battle of proxies. There are credible reports that Indian and Israeli intelligence involvement in U.S.-controlled Afghanistan has deepened in the past seven years. American military and intelligence officials are impressed with the record of both countries in fighting Islamic groups in Kashmir and the Mideast. Israel invested heavily in establishing schools that study the art of Islamic indoctrination. These schools were used to learn how clerics can brainwash recruits and then exploit them politically. Israeli spymasters have used this knowledge to penetrate Islamic groups and plant agents. They have passed this technique on to the Indians to help them counter pro-Pakistan religious groups in Kashmir. In the Kargil war in 1999, Pakistanis and Kashmiris faced a direct Israeli special operations intervention on the side of the Indian military.

By Ahmed Quraishi

Wednesday, 24 June 2009.

WWW.AHMEDQURAISHI.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—Pakistan will probably never catch terrorist leader Baitullah Mehsud alive. Why? For the same reason that we will never really know why uncircumcised dead fighters have been turning up from the bunkers of what is supposed to be Pakistani Taliban. Or why alcoholic beverages were found from some of their hideouts. Or why citizens of China and Sri Lanka – two close military allies of Pakistan – were brutally attacked on Pakistani soil by people claiming to be fighting America. Or why this new Taliban is so eager to kill ordinary Pakistanis and harass anti-India Kashmiri activists and demand they fight Pakistan.

Similarly we will never know why listed companies like Google and Facebook are speeding up Persian translations of their sites when no profit is involved. [Will their stockholders accept democracy instead of profits?] Or why the government of President Zardari exerted pressure for the removal of the Saudi ambassador in Islamabad. And why the government did not object when the U.S. and other allied donors tried to create a special fund for Balochistan and NWFP with the condition that it operate outside Pakistan’s control. And why the Saudi ambassador strongly opposed the plan when Mr. Zardari’s team almost endorsed it. Could this be one of several reasons why the Saudi ambassador became unwelcome here, received threats to his life and then was unable to meet the President before leaving despite several attempts?

The popular Pakistani understanding of the battle against Baitullah Mehsud is more American than Pakistani. This prevents us from accepting that this insurgency is wrapped in multiple layers of deceit. The entire prevailing narrative of the situation is exclusively American, tailored to suit Washington’s worldview. It talks about a uniform threat of Taliban and al Qaeda with no distinction made between the Afghan Taliban and the new Pakistani version; the American narrative does not explain how or why the ranks of the Pakistani Taliban have been swelling steadily when the Afghan Taliban is not experiencing a similar surge; and why the American narrative suppresses any discussion of Pakistani grievances about an organized anti-Pakistan terror wave emanating from Afghanistan.

The Pakistani counter narrative is missing on the government level and is probably limited to some circles within the Pakistani strategic and intelligence communities. The impression is that the Pakistani government is essentially bartering silence for U.S. aid.

This is a dangerous bargain.

It means that Pakistani officials won’t take a stand on the use of Afghan soil to export terror to Pakistan. In fact, there are strong grounds to conclude that while other parts of the U.S. government engage Pakistan, freewheeling elements within the Central Intelligence Agency are probably conducting their own foreign policy on the ground in the region. The simultaneous trouble in both the Pakistani and Iranian parts of Balochistan is but one case in point.

Another downside to our enthusiasm for U.S. aid money at any cost is our waning ability to resist the upcoming American plan to install India as the resident guardian over Pakistan and Afghanistan. A senior US national security official is expected to bring this plan to Pakistan in the next few days. Islamabad’s obsession with US aid while staying mum on vital Pakistani interest is absurd. Why is Prime Minister Gilani complaining now about the US ‘surge’ in Afghanistan when Mr. Zardari and his foreign minister wasted no time in warmly welcoming it when Mr. Obama unveiled the plan in March?

This explains why Mr. Zardari signed an American-proposed agreement to give India overland trade routes to Afghanistan. No wonder U.S. diplomats in Islamabad are so emboldened that recently some of them spent half the day camped at the federal petroleum ministry to force a rollback of the Iran gas deal.

There are also fresh questions on the extent of support the United States is getting from two of its closest allies India and Israel in Afghanistan. There are credible reports that Indian and Israeli intelligence involvement in U.S.-controlled Afghanistan has deepened in the past seven years. Some American military and intelligence officials are impressed with the record of both countries in fighting Islamic groups, especially the Indian experience in occupied Kashmir. The Israelis have invested heavily in establishing schools that study the art of Islamic indoctrination. These schools were used to learn how clerics can brainwash recruits and then exploit them politically. Israeli spymasters have used this knowledge to penetrate Mideastern Islamic groups. They have passed this technique to the Indians to help them counter pro-Pakistan religious groups in Kashmir. In the Kargil war in 1999, Pakistanis and Kashmiris faced a direct Israeli special operations intervention on the side of the Indian military.

The mess in Pakistan’s western areas is not just a battle with religious extremism. A larger part is a battle of proxies. None of this means that we should treat Washington as an enemy. But it does have an agenda that is increasingly diverging from Pakistan’s strategic interests.