The Arrivals: The Foundations of the Antichrist: The War on Terror — How the Foundations Were Laid

September 11, 2001 changed the world. But the question isn't simply what happened that morning. The question is what happened afterward, who benefited, and how an attack on American soil became the justification for a new era of war, surveillance, military expansion, and political control.

Americans were told they were entering a war against terrorism. They were told their freedoms had to be restricted to protect them. They were told the Middle East had to be invaded to make the world safer.

And while the public was grieving, the machinery for a much larger political agenda was already moving.

This episode looks at the people, statements, policies, and interests surrounding September 11 and the War on Terror. The argument is that 9/11 was not simply a terrorist attack followed by an unfortunate chain of events. It was an operation that served powerful interests and gave those interests the public support they needed to carry out plans that would have been much harder to sell under ordinary circumstances.

The New World Order Wasn't a New Phrase

Before September 11, the language of a new world order was already coming from the highest levels of American government.

On September 11, 1990, President George H.W. Bush addressed Congress and spoke about a new world order emerging from the Persian Gulf crisis. He described a new era in which nations would be brought together under a common international structure.

Then, on January 29, 1991, he repeated the message in his State of the Union address:

“What is at stake is more than one small country; it is a big idea: a new world order.”

That wasn't a phrase pulled from some obscure underground publication. It came directly from the president of the United States.

Miller Center+1

The Cold War was ending, the Soviet Union was collapsing, and the United States was positioning itself as the dominant military and political power. The question was what that power would be used to accomplish.

A declassified 1992 Defense Planning Guidance document makes the strategic thinking worth examining. It discusses preserving American dominance in regions considered critical to U.S. interests, including the Persian Gulf. It also describes preventing the emergence of a hostile power capable of challenging that position.

National Archives

This was the geopolitical environment leading into the 21st century. The Middle East was already a major strategic priority. Oil, military access, regional influence, and the balance of power were all part of the calculation.

September 11 would provide the justification to take that agenda much further.

Aaron Russo: The Conversation Before 9/11

One of the most disturbing accounts connected to this subject came from filmmaker and political activist Aaron Russo.

In his interview with Alex Jones, Russo described meeting a man named Nick Rockefeller through a female attorney. According to Russo, the two developed a relationship and discussed banking, political power, and the future of society.

Russo claimed Rockefeller told him, approximately eleven months before September 11, that an event was going to happen. He said Rockefeller described what would follow: an invasion of Afghanistan, an invasion of Iraq, control over oil resources, a permanent American military presence in the Middle East, and eventually action against Venezuela's Hugo Chávez.

Russo said he was told that the coming event would make those actions possible.

After September 11 happened and the invasions followed, Russo said he remembered that conversation and connected the pieces.

These are Russo's own allegations, preserved in his interviews. They deserve to be examined rather than dismissed simply because they challenge the official narrative.

Conspiracy Theories & Facts+1

Think about the sequence he described.

• An event that would change public opinion.
• A war in Afghanistan.
• An invasion of Iraq.
• Access to strategic resources.
• A larger American military presence in the Middle East.
• A political structure built around permanent security threats.

That is an extraordinary account. And it raises a question that deserves serious attention: how much of the post-9/11 agenda had already been anticipated before the public knew what was coming?

September 11 and the War That Followed

The attacks were used to create an atmosphere in which questioning government policy became increasingly difficult.

The American public was frightened, angry, and grieving. Politicians could appeal to patriotism and national security while asking the public to accept policies that would have faced much greater resistance before the attacks.

The government expanded surveillance powers. Military operations spread across multiple countries. The language of national security became a justification for a growing international military campaign.

And then came Iraq.

Iraq had not carried out the September 11 attacks. Yet the Bush administration built a case for invading the country around claims about weapons of mass destruction and the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's government.

The invasion began in March 2003. The weapons of mass destruction stockpiles used to justify the war were never found.

Hundreds of thousands of people would die in the violence and instability that followed. The country was devastated, its government overthrown, and the entire region pushed into another period of upheaval.

The War on Terror was presented as a response to terrorism. But its consequences went far beyond pursuing those responsible for September 11.

It reshaped the Middle East.

Who Benefits From the New Security State?

Look at what changed after 9/11.

The government gained broader surveillance authority. Intelligence agencies expanded their reach. Military spending increased. Private security and defense contractors benefited from a seemingly endless war. The public became accustomed to airport security procedures, government monitoring, and the idea that extraordinary powers were necessary to protect the country.

Fear became a political instrument.

And when a government can convince its population that danger is everywhere, it becomes much easier to justify almost anything in the name of protection.

This is where the influence of powerful political networks deserves scrutiny.

The relationship between American foreign policy and pro-Israel political organizations is not imaginary. Lobbying, campaign financing, advocacy groups, think tanks, and personal political relationships are all legitimate subjects of investigation. Their influence should be measured through public records, documented relationships, policy decisions, and the people involved.

The distinction matters: criticizing Zionism, Israeli government policy, specific lobbyists, or political organizations is not the same as blaming Jewish people collectively. The focus here is political power and the networks that exercise it.

The central question is whether American foreign policy has been shaped by interests that do not necessarily serve the American public.

When politicians support policies that benefit foreign governments while American taxpayers finance the consequences, the public has every right to ask who those politicians are serving.

Dual citizenship, foreign political connections, lobbying relationships, and campaign contributions can all be examined. No public official should be above scrutiny, regardless of their background or affiliations.

The President's Words

In December 2001, President George W. Bush described being at an elementary school in Florida on September 11. He said he was sitting in a classroom when he saw an airplane hit the World Trade Center on television. He then described being informed by Chief of Staff Andrew Card that a second plane had hit the other tower.

That account has been repeatedly examined because of the question of what Bush knew and when he knew it.

There is an important detail in the timeline: footage of the first plane's impact was not being broadcast live at the moment it happened. The second plane's impact was broadcast live, while footage of the first impact became available later.

That distinction doesn't answer every question surrounding the government's response. It does, however, matter when examining the president's account and the timeline of events.

Then, on November 10, 2001, Bush addressed the United Nations and warned against what he called outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks.

Why was the administration so concerned with controlling the public conversation about September 11 while the country was still trying to understand what had happened?

Why were questions about intelligence failures, prior warnings, and the government's response so often treated as attacks on the country itself?

A government that has nothing to hide should be able to withstand scrutiny.

The Official Story and the Power to Define Reality

One of the most effective ways to control a population is to control the boundaries of acceptable discussion.

Call someone a conspiracy theorist, and many people will stop listening before they even examine the evidence.

That label can be used to shut down questions about intelligence agencies, political relationships, financial interests, military planning, and government accountability.

But a label isn't evidence. And an official statement isn't proof simply because it comes from an official source.

The public should be able to examine government documents, timelines, testimony, financial relationships, and the actions that followed September 11 without being told that asking questions is somehow un-American.

Look at the speeches before the attacks. Look at the strategic documents. Listen to Aaron Russo's account. Examine the decisions made after the attacks. Follow the money, the political relationships, and the military objectives.

Don't isolate each event from the others. Look at the sequence.

The Foundations of the Antichrist

This series examines the possibility that the Antichrist system is not simply a single individual who appears one day. It is a structure of power that develops through political institutions, financial interests, religious manipulation, psychological conditioning, and control over information.

A population can be conditioned to accept things it would have rejected before. It can be convinced that war is peace, surveillance is protection, and obedience is patriotism.

September 11 became a turning point in that process.

The attacks gave the public a common enemy. The War on Terror gave governments a permanent justification for extraordinary powers. The invasion of Iraq demonstrated how easily public fear could be converted into support for a war built on claims that ultimately failed.

And the political interests surrounding these decisions deserve to be examined, regardless of how powerful or well-connected the people involved may be.

This is why the timeline matters. This is why the speeches matter. This is why the people who anticipated the direction of events matter.

The question isn't whether the world changed after September 11. It did.

The question is who was prepared to benefit from that change, who helped bring it about, and what kind of world they were trying to build.

Watch the material. Do your own research. Figure it out for yourself. You're smart enough to decide what it means.