Saturday, June 23, 2012

The Grand Deception - A Second Look at the War on Terrorism

The Grand Deception | Sep 11th 2001

The first edition of was put on the Internet in November of 2001. The second edition, which includes expanded historical information, was released on January 8th, 2002. At first, it was my intent to keep the material up to date with late-breaking events: but then it occurred to me that it might have more value in its original form than if it were continually updated.

Writing about news events after they happen is not difficult, but writing about them before they happen is another matter. So, with the exception of expanding historical data and adding epilogues to the thirteen predictions at the end of this report, I decided to let the overview stand exactly as conceptualized on Friday, September 14, 2001.

This is that report.


In the year 500 B.C., a Chinese general and philosopher by the name of Sun Tzu wrote a treatise called The Art of War. It has been translated into just about every language in the world and has become a classic of military and political strategy.

In it, Sun Tzu said:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.1

It is now three days after the attack, and I am haunted by the words of Sun Tzu. America has declared war, but her leaders are not even sure who the enemy is.

  • Is it a man called Osama bin Laden?

  • Is it Afghanistan, the nation that shelters him?

  • Is it the Taliban that rules Afghanistan?

  • Is it a terrorist group called al-Qaeda?

  • Is it Muslim Extremism?

We commit to war but do not know the enemy.

The meaning of the war on terrorism is far more complicated than the surface facts would indicate. On the surface, we have a group of people in the Middle East who hate America and have pledged themselves to inflict severe punishment on her, even at the sacrifice of their own lives. If that is as far as we care to look, then the meaning is simple. It is them against us; we are at war; they are the bad guys; we are the good guys; and we must destroy the enemy.

That is the meaning that was given to the American people by their leaders. President Bush summarized it well when he told the nation on 9/11 that the attack was an act of cowardice and that America was the target because it was a beacon of freedom. If that is the correct meaning of the event, the logical consequences are that we must fight back; we must defend freedom; and we must not stop until the cowards are wiped off the face of the earth. That is the path of war, retaliation, and, of course, counter-retaliation.

There is, however, a deeper understanding of this event, and it has to do with the maxim: actions have consequences. To come to that understanding, we must do the unthinkable in moments of crisis.

We must ask questions.


Asking questions is not popular with some people.

When a nation is at war, there is a tendency for its citizens to rally behind their leaders without questioning the wisdom of their actions. For them, the test of patriotism is conformity. Those who ask questions are called unpatriotic. Life is simple for the conformists. All they want to know is “What side are you on, anyway?”

After reading this book in its entirety, there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind about my patriotism or which side holds my loyalty; but, along the way, I definitely will be asking some hard questions about the wisdom of American foreign policy.

Although I may be critical of our politicians and their policies; I want it clearly understood that I totally support our men and women who will be sent into combat as a result of those policies. When we find ourselves in a shooting war, regardless of how we got into it, at that point we have no choice.

We must put all that we have into the fight. But, the other side of that coin is that we must fight to win. Our goal must be victory, not stalemate – and we should achieve it as quickly as possible to minimize casualties on both sides. That does not mean fighting a protracted conflict in which something other than victory is the goal. That is what our politicians forced us to do in Korea and Vietnam and Desert Storm and the Balkan War.

After the fighting was over, the tyrannical regimes were still there. We left them in place. Some of them are now supporting the terrorists who have attacked us. In the days ahead, we must be clear on the difference between loyalty and patriotism.

The spirit of loyalty compels us to support and defend our country even when she is wrong. That is necessary in time of war, but patriotism is a higher ideal. It compels us, not only to defend our country when she is wrong, but also to do everything within our power to bring her back to the side of right.

When it comes to patriotism, there is no one who has a greater love for country than I do. That is easy to say; but when you hear someone make that statement, you have a right to know where is the evidence? My evidence is my life. I did not purchase our family’s flag on Tuesday. It is very old and weathered. We have proudly displayed it on every holiday for more than forty years. Often, it was the only flag in the neighborhood. I did not need a terrorist attack to remind me to honor my country and my heritage.

Displaying the flag is important, but patriotism requires much more than that. I have devoted almost the entirety of my adult life trying to mobilize my fellow countrymen to the defense of America from her enemies outside her borders and within. Since 1960, I have left behind me a long paper trail and a mountain of audio and videotapes extolling the virtues of the American system, her culture, her Constitution, and her people.

I love America and all that she has stood for in days gone by, but I am saddened beyond words at what has been done to her within my lifetime – and what I fear is yet to be done in the days ahead.

There are those who may say that I am anti-government, but that is not true. I am not anti-government; I am anti-corrupt government. I will do everything possible to defend my government from those who would violate their oaths of office, tear apart the Constitution, or use their positions of trust to oppress our people.

To oppose corruption in government is the highest obligation of patriotism.


The first question we need to ask is, why? Why do the terrorists hate America?2

I am reminded of the story of a young man in medieval times who wanted to become a knight. He obtained an audience with the king and offered his services, explaining that he was an excellent swordsman. The king told him that the realm was at peace, and there was no need for a knight.

Nevertheless, the young man insisted that he be allowed to serve. To put and end to the discussion, the king finally agreed and knighted him on the spot. Several months later, the young knight returned to the castle and requested another audience. When he entered the throne room, he bowed in respect and then reported that he had been very busy. He explained that he had killed thirty of the king’s enemies in the North and forty-five of them in the South. The king looked puzzled for a moment and said, “But I don’t have any enemies.” To which the knight replied, “You do now, Sire.”

Do Muslim terrorists hate America because of its religion or culture? Is it because they are envious of America’s wealth or that American women wear short skirts? Is it because they really do hate freedom?

There are several passages in the Qur’an that, indeed, create the impression that Muslims are told to kill non-believers as a matter of religious faith.

For example, in chapter 9, verse 5, we find:

“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them.”

In 9.14 it says:

“Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace.”

In 9.123 we find:

“Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

Chapter 2, verse 191 says:

“Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out.”

On the other hand, there are other passages that seem to contradict this theme. Muhammad says repeatedly that killing is only justified in self-defense or in retaliation –only after the enemy strikes first.

For example, in chapter 60, verses 8 and 9, he says:

Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of [your] religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly…. Allah only forbids you respecting those who make war upon you on account of [your] religion, and drove you forth from your homes.”

Chapter 9, verse 13, says:

“What? Will you not fight a people who broke their oath and… attacked you first?”

Chapter 22, verse 39, says:

“Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed.”

Chapter 47, verse 4, says:

“So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite their necks until you have overcome them. Then make 4 [them] prisoners and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom themselves until the war terminates.”

So, what is going on here? Which concept are we to believe?

To unravel this mystery, we must look beyond the words themselves and view the historical events that were unfolding at the time the words were written, which was around 620 AD. The key to understanding is in the last phrase of the previous quote: “… until the war terminates.”

What war?


After Muhammad revealed that he had been chosen as a prophet of Allah, it took many years for him to attract a large following.

In the earlier days of his proselytizing, he often entertained Christians and Jews in his own home and counted many of them among his personal friends. He clearly did not think of them as enemies who should be killed on the spot. In those days, “un-believers” were simply those who were not convinced that he had spoken to the angel Gabriel or really had been ordained by Allah to lead mankind.

The most prominent of these unbelievers were members of the Quraysh tribe who worshiped multiple gods represented by seven idols located within the shrine called Kaaba, in Mecca.

When Muhammad finally began to attract a following, the leaders of the Quraysh plotted against him and attempted to abort his movement by harassing and even torturing his followers. He was forced to flee the city to avoid assassination. When Muhammad used the word “idolaters” in the Qur’an, he was referring to the Quraysh.

This is important because, while the Qur’an was being written from the oral teachings of Muhammad, and while his followers became embroiled in many deadly conflicts with the Quraysh, they were often in relative harmony with Christians and Jews. Shortly after becoming the religious and civil leader of Medina in 622 AD, Muhammad openly accepted friendship and trade with the Jews there.

To clarify their relationship, he drew up a concordat that proclaimed:

The Jews who attach themselves to our commonwealth shall be protected from all insults and vexations; they shall have an equal right with our own people to our assistances and good offices; they … shall form with the Muslims one composite nation; they shall practice their religion as freely as the Muslims.

Unfortunately, this tranquility did not last. By 623, Muhammad and his followers, in order to obtain food and other necessities, were regularly raiding caravans passing nearby, many of them belonging to Quraysh merchants from Mecca. This led to retaliation by the Quraysh who returned to Medina with 900 men intent on annihilating the Muhammadan community, but their attack was repelled.

Before long, Jews and Muslims in Medina became bitterly divided over doctrinal and economic disputes. Armed conflict broke out between the two groups, and the Jews were ordered to abandon the city and leave their possessions behind. But Muhammad was not to enjoy his supremacy for long. Early in 625, the Quraysh arrived from Mecca with an army of 3000 men and routed the Muslims from Medina.

Muhammad was severely wounded in the battle. The previously ousted Jews returned to their homes. Six months later, after Muhammad recovered from his wounds, he returned to the city and attacked the Jews, accusing them of aiding the Quraysh. Once again they were driven from the city.

In 626 AD, the Quraysh and the Jews combined forces and, with an army of 10,000 men attacked the Muslim stronghold at Medina. Muhammad knew he could not defeat such a force in open battle and chose, instead, to protect the city by digging a deep trench around it. Fortunately for him, extreme wind and rain kept the invaders at bay. After an unsuccessful 20-day siege, the Quraysh abandoned the effort and retuned to Mecca. Muhammad at once led an army of 3000 men against the remaining Jews who were overpowered. He gave his prisoners a choice of death or accepting Islam.

By this time, Muhammad had become an able and experienced military leader. He planned sixty-five campaigns and raids and personally led twenty-seven. In 630, he led an expedition against Mecca, which surrendered without a fight. Arabia was finally entirely under his control.

Parts of the Qur’an read like military stratagems because that is exactly what they were.


The reason for going into all of this is to clarify that, while the Qur’an was being written, there was a war going on.

Those passages that direct the faithful to kill unbelievers were not motivated by religious intolerance but by the passions of warfare and the necessity of survival against an enemy. It was a question of kill or be killed. This fact becomes clear when we recall that, after the fighting was over, and Muhammad finally became the undisputed master of all Arabia, the Christians were allowed to remain and enjoy full liberty of worship.

If he had wanted unbelievers killed solely because of their religion, they would have been slaughtered. However, the only limitations placed upon them were that they pay a modest tax and refrain from charging interest on loans.3

When passages from the Qur’an are taken out of historical context, it may seem that Muslims are instructed to kill innocent people whose only crime is that they do not believe in Islam. However, when they are understood in terms of the events that were unfolding at the time the Qur’an was written, that notion cannot be supported.

There are those who would divide us today along religious lines and manipulate us into fearing and hating and killing each other. They rely on us not to know this history. They take passages from the Qur’an out of historical context – just as they do with passages from the Bible and the Torah – to prove whatever point they wish.

Islam is not a unified faith with a hierarchy of control to establish doctrine. There is no single leader or council to make pronouncements about how to interpret the Qur’an. The spiritual leader of each congregation can offer guidance and scholarship; but, ultimately, each person is free to make his own interpretation. Consequently, many Muslims since Muhammad’s time have used Scripture to justify aggression, and some of the radical sects of today are continuing to put their own hate-twist to the message, but we must realize that this is not an intrinsic part of the Islamic faith. Exactly the same pattern is seen in the history of other religions as well.

The Middle East is not the only place with this problem. In the Balkans—and many other places in the world – there may be obvious differences in religion or ethnic origin between the combatants, but these are not the real causes of the conflict today. The hatred between them stems from a history of armed conflict in which each side perceives itself as the victim of aggression and cruelty from the other. Religious or ethnic differences may have played a part at the origins of these conflicts, but in their modern context, they are grudge 6 wars.

That is the reason different tribes within Islam often fight among themselves just as fiercely as they do against unbelievers.

Throughout history, the Qur’an, the Torah, and the Bible have all been used by cunning leaders to justify their wars; but that is not the fault of mainstream Islam or Judaism or Christianity, it is the fault of cunning leaders.

Even without history and logic as our guide, the fact remains that Islamic terrorists today are not attacking non-Islamic countries at random. They are attacking only those that previously have launched military campaigns against them. Clearly, their motivation today does not come from religion. To them, it is a grudge war. It comes from a desire for revenge.

So, the next question is: revenge for what?


Ever since the end of World War II, America’s politicians have viewed themselves as global leaders with a responsibility to manage the affairs of the world that outweighs or at least equals any obligation to their own country. For over five decades, the nation’s universities and media have extolled the virtues of internationalism.

The old tradition of avoiding foreign entanglements was sneeringly called isolationism. We were conditioned to think that the old way was stupid.

The wave of the future was shown to us, and it was a New World Order. Over the years, we watched with approval as our leaders increasingly entangled our once sovereign nation into a world community called the United Nations. Treaty by treaty, we watched and approved as we became increasingly subject to international edicts and played the role of world policeman.

It is in that role that our military began to wage wars against populations far removed from our shores and even further from our national interests. To justify those wars, we were told that we were defending victim groups against their despotic neighbors or ridding the world of drug lords; but, after the smoke of battle cleared, we discovered that there were hidden agendas that were much less noble.

More often than not, the real purpose of the war was to control oil fields, pipelines, ports, mineral resources, or military supply lines – or even to distract voters from thinking about scandals in the White House. If you roam around the globe shooting and bombing people, and aligning yourself politically with others who do the same, you cannot expect your victims to like you very much.

Some may even be willing to die for revenge.


On Wednesday evening (September 12), Henry Sigman, reported on Nightline:

“The U.S. is seen as a sort of an insensitive hegemony with arrogance that seeks to impose it’s own values on the rest of the world. It is seen as an uncritical supporter of the State of Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians, and the combination of the two does not make for U.S. popularity in that part of the world.”

Adding to this theme was Magnas Raisdorff, who also appeared on Nightline while Ted Koppel, the show’s host, was speaking from London. Raisdorff, a reporter in the London branch of CBS, and an expert on terrorism, agreed with Sigman.

He said:

Many in the Arab world regard the U.S., not as an honest broker, but as protecting and shielding Israel over very important political as well as religious issues. Among these issues are: Israel’s control over holy Islamic sites, like the Dome of the Rock;4 the presence of U.S. troops near Islamic religious places such as Mecca 7 and Medina; the sanctions the U.S. has placed on Iraq are mostly depriving children of drugs and food they desperately need; and, most importantly, Israel’s attacks on prominent Palestinian militants are using equipment, like helicopter gun ships, provided by the U.S.

Then Jim Ruden, also in London, came on the program to summarize Raisdorff’s report saying:

“And that is why what happened yesterday, happened, not because ‘America is the world’s brightest beacon [of freedom].’”

At the time of the terrorist attack in September, the United States had a quarter of a million soldiers stationed in 141 countries around the world. Since the end of World War II, it has launched military strikes against Panama, Kosovo, Albania, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, Kuwait, Sudan, Haiti, Granada, Afghanistan, and Somalia – all in the pursuit of stopping drugs, defending freedom, or resisting Communism.

In the great majority of cases, these objectives were not achieved. The only measurable result has been the creation of hostility toward America. That is what I call the Oops Factor that has been a dominant feature of U.S. foreign policy for over five decades.

Politicians never admit that they have made a mistake – especially a big one. To do so would imply that they are not qualified to lead. No matter what errors they make, they find something or someone to blame. Their standard excuse is that they didn’t have enough money or large enough staff or enough authority. If only we will increase their budget and give them more power, everything will be corrected. Typically, they already have spent too much money, hired too many people, and exercised too much authority, so their proposed solution is more of exactly what created the problem in the first place.

In the case of terrorism, the politicians who create U.S. foreign policy cannot be expected to tell the world they made a mistake. It will be a chilly day in Hades when they announce that they, themselves, have any responsibility for these acts. They will not want the American people contemplating the possibility that Tuesday’s attack might have been related to an interventionist foreign policy.

They will try to single out a person and then demonize him so he will become the central focus of anger and retaliation. That person probably will be Osama bin Laden, so, let us see what he has to say about this.

(Please remember that these words were written just three days after the attack of September 11 and, at that time, bin Laden had not yet been firmly declared as the responsible party.)


In May of 1998, ABC reporter John Miller interviewed bin Laden at his camp on a mountaintop in Southern Afghanistan. This is what he said:

The Americans impose themselves on everyone… They accuse our children in Palestine of being terrorists. Those children who have no weapons and have not even reached maturity. At the same time, they defend… with their airplanes and tanks, the state of the Jews that has a policy to destroy the future of these children… In the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, … houses were demolished over the heads of children. Also, by testimony of relief workers in Iraq, the American-led sanctions resulted in the death of more than one million Iraqi children. …

We believe that the biggest thieves in the world and the terrorists are the Americans. The only way for us to fend off these assaults is to use similar means. … So, we tell the Americans as a people, and we tell the mothers of soldiers, and American mothers in general, if they 8 value their lives and those of their children, find a nationalistic government that will look after their interests and … does not attack others, their lands, or their honor.5

I am not quoting bin Laden because I think he is a nice guy or that I want to exonerate him in any way. In my view, there is never any excuse for terrorism. I include his words only to emphasize what I stated earlier.

He and his followers are not motivated by hatred of freedom or religious zeal but by a desire for revenge. In the days ahead, as we contemplate how to put an end to terrorism, we had better be clear on that.

As long as we follow a foreign policy of interventionism, we will create new enemies faster than we can track down the old ones and we will never be able to erect anti-terrorist measures capable of stopping them all. If we retaliate against populations or geographical areas, we could unite all of Islam in a holy war against us and light the fire of hatred in the hearts of a billion Muslims whose primary passion in life will be to seek revenge. Religion will have little to do with it.6 The Constitution provides a much better solution.

When the nation is attacked by another nation, the logical response is to declare war. But when it is attacked by an individual or private group that is not acting on behalf of another nation, then Congress is authorized to issue what is called a Letter of Marque and Reprisal. That is an authorization to a private citizen or organization to pursue and eliminate the threatening party.

In the early days of the country, Letters of Marque were issued against pirates on the high seas and against notorious bandits. The people who were called upon for these assignments were professional bounty hunters who were exceptionally efficient in their work. They had no interest in starting a war or killing a lot of innocent people. They had a single target and they did not get paid unless they were successful.

If Congress really wants to eliminate bin Laden and his terrorist organization, issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal would be a much more effective solution than blanketing the Middle East with an armada of planes and tanks and ground forces – and it would be exceedingly more humane as well.7 We do not need to launch war against the Muslim world to eliminate terrorist organizations within their borders.

We will not accomplish that by joining forces with the Leninists in Moscow and Peking who sustain those terrorists. And we certainly do not need to scrap the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be protected at home. You cannot defend freedom by destroying freedom.

Using laws that were in place long before the terrorist attack on 9-11, the FBI already had extensive information about terrorist groups within the U.S. and in fact, had arrested hundreds of suspected terrorists and frozen millions of dollars of funds belonging to al Qaeda. The problem was not a lack of authority to do these things, but that the authority was selectively not used when it should have been.

Although relatively harmless people were rounded up, the heavy hitters were actually protected.


On January 7, 2002, The Australian reported that President Clinton had rejected at least three opportunities to eliminate bin Laden – even after the U.S. State Department had labeled him as “the greatest single financier of terrorist projects in the world.”

The first opportunity was when Sudanese officials offered to extradite him from Khartoum in 1996, but the offer was turned down flat.

The Australian said:

A second offer to get bin Laden came unofficially from Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani-American millionaire who was a donor to Mr. Clinton’s election campaign 9 in 1996. On July 6, 2000, he visited John Podesta, then the president’s chief of staff, to say that intelligence officers from a Gulf state were offering to help extract bin Laden…. The deal fell through when, according to Mr. Ijaz, the US sent a senior counter-terrorism expert to the United Arab Emirates to check the authenticity of the offer. Mr. Ijaz said the US’s “front door” approach had rendered that impossible.8

A third opportunity came when the intelligence services of Saudi Arabia offered to place a tracking device in the luggage of bin Laden’s mother who was planning to take a trip to visit her son in Afghanistan. This would have allowed the CIA or a team of Special Forces to pinpoint bin Laden’s exact whereabouts, but they declined the offer.

On November 7, 2001, the London Guardian reported that they had obtained FBI documents showing that investigation of members of the bin Laden family in the U.S. had been stopped upon orders from the White House.

The FBI file, which had been coded as a national security issue, revealed that Abdullah bin Laden, who lived in Washington, had been under investigation because of his relationship with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth – a suspected terrorist organization.

According to The Guardian:

The FBI files were closed in 1996 apparently before any conclusions could be reached on either the bin Laden brothers or the organization itself.

High-placed intelligence sources in Washington told the Guardian this week:

“There were always constraints on investigating the Saudis,” They said the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year. The intelligence agencies had been told to “back off” from investigations involving other members of the bin Laden Family, the Saudi royals, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan.9

Terrorism in the United States is not a problem of needing more laws to restrict personal freedom but a problem of corruption in government. It is insanity to give government agencies the power to tap everyone’s phone and computer, the right to make arbitrary arrests in the name of national security, and the power to try anyone they wish in secret. It is not that government lacked enough authority in the past to act against terrorism, but that it ignored and abused the authority it already had.

Increasing authority without eliminating corruption is a prescription for tyranny.


For the past few days, I have found myself thinking about George Washington. At first, I didn’t know why. Then it dawned on me. Hadn’t Washington warned about all this just before leaving office as first President of the United States?

So I dug out a copy of his Farewell Address and, sure enough, there it was.

This is what he said:

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. … Antipathy in one nation against another, disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests.

… So, likewise, the passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, … betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and the wars of the latter.

… Europe has a set of primary interests which to us 10 have none or very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the cause of which are essentially foreign to our concerns.

... Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.

One cannot read those words of wisdom without sadly realizing how far we have drifted from our nation’s moorings. In retrospect, the so-called isolationism of our forefathers is now looking very good.


In the meantime, we are told that we are fighting terrorism.

But, as stated previously, terrorism is not the enemy. It is a strategy of the enemy. That is like saying the enemy is hand-to-hand combat or air raids or missile attacks or espionage. Since terrorism is not the enemy, a war on terrorism cannot be won. It is doomed to drag on forever – just like the war on drugs and the war against crime. It might as well be a war against sin. Shortly after World War II, George Orwell wrote his classic novel entitled, 1984.

It was a satirical commentary on what the world might be like in the future if governments continued to expand their power as they were then doing, eventually, they would evolve into a global police state. He described the methods that would be used to keep the masses from rebelling. Thought control was the primary method, but one of the ways they accomplished that was to be constantly at war.

In time of war, the populace will accept any hardship and make any sacrifice to defend the homeland. However, to have war, it was necessary to have an enemy, and that enemy had to be despicable in the eyes of the homeland defenders. Atrocities had to be committed and many lives had to be lost. But it was equally important to avoid winning the war – otherwise, the hardships imposed by the state would no longer seem reasonable to its subjects.

The world was divided into three geographical areas called Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia, and the rulers of these regions agreed to war against each other but never to seek outright victory.

The object was perpetual war.

Orwell described it this way:

In one combination or another, these three superstates are permanently at war and have been so for the past twenty-five years. War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century.

… This is not to say that either the conduct of the war, or the prevailing attitude toward it, has become less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous. On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries.

… But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at.

… In the centers of civilization war means no more than a continuous shortage of consumption goods, and the occasional crash of a rocket bomb which may cause a few scores of deaths.

… It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist.

… War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair … waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.10


One of the most powerful images created by Orwell in his novel was the ritual called “Two Minutes Hate.”

All members of the ruling bureaucracy were required each day to assemble before a television screen and view a two-minute propaganda program designed to arouse fierce hatred toward the enemy. Since there was no real enemy, the state had created a media substitute. An actor was selected to look and speak in such a way as to invoke fear and revulsion. The object was to distract the populace from thinking about their miserable condition and keep them constantly filled with the emotion of hatred.

Hatred of the enemy made all things tolerable; but, to be effective, it had to be directed at a person, a face, an icon for evil. The face was given the name of Emmanuel Goldstein.

Orwell wrote:

The next moment a hideous, grinding screech, as of some monstrous machine running without oil, burst from the big telescreen at the end of the room. It was a noise that set one’s teeth on edge and bristled the hair on the back of one’s neck. The Hate had started.

As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed onto the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. The little sandy haired woman gave a squeak of mingled fear and disgust. … Goldstein was delivering his usual venomous attack against the Party…

He was abusing Big Brother, he was denouncing the dictatorship of the Party, he was demanding the immediate conclusion of peace with Eurasia, … And all the while, lest anyone should be in any doubt about the reality which Goldstein’s specious claptrap covered, behind his head on the telescreen there marched the endless columns of the Eurasian army—row after row of solid looking men with expressionless Asiatic faces, who swarmed up to the surface of the screen and vanished, to be replaced by others exactly similar.

The dull, rhythmic tramp of the soldiers’ boots formed the background to Goldstein’s bleating voice. … In its second minute the Hate rose to a frenzy. People were leaping up and down in their places and shouting at the tops of their voices in an effort to drown the maddening bleating voice that came from the screen. … The dark haired girl behind Winston had begun crying out “Swine! Swine! Swine” and suddenly she picked up a heavy Newspeak dictionary and flung it at the screen. It struck Goldstein’s nose and bounced off; the voice continued inexorably. … The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was, not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in.

Within thirty seconds, any pretense was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. … The Hate rose to its climax. The voice of Goldstein had become an actual sheep’s bleat, and for an instant the face changed into that of a sheep.

Then the sheep-face melted into the figure of a Eurasian soldier who seemed to be advancing, huge and terrible, his submachine gun roaring and seeming to spring out of the 12 surface of the screen, so that some of the people in the front row actually flinched backwards in their seats. But in the same moment, drawing a deep sigh of relief from everybody, the hostile figure melted into the face of Big Brother, … full of power and mysterious calm, and so vast that it almost filled up the screen.

Nobody heard what Big Brother was saying. It was merely a few words of encouragement, the sort of words that are uttered in the din of battle, not distinguishable individually but restoring confidence by the fact of being spoken.

Then the face of Big Brother faded away again, and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals:



When we look at the facts surrounding the war on terrorism – particularly the lack of a defined enemy and the impossibility of victory – we cannot miss the striking parallels to Orwell’s satire. His only serious error, it seems, was choosing the wrong year for the title of his book.

Orwell’s story, of course, is fiction; but, when it comes to war as a means of controlling or altering society, the real world is not much different. Imagine, for example how “fictional” it would seem to be told that American involvement in World War I was eagerly pursued by an organization supposedly dedicated to world peace. Yet, that is exactly what transpired at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.

The source of this information is a man who was in a unique position to know. In 1954, Norman Dodd had been the staff director of the Congressional Special Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations.

I conducted a video interview with him in 1982, and the program was released as The Hidden Agenda. Mr. Dodd described how a member of his staff, Catherine Casey, spent several weeks examining the minute books of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace and read important passages, word-for-word, into a Dictaphone. She started with the minutes of the very first meeting of the board of trustees after the Endowment was created in 1909.

This is what Mr. Dodd said:

In that year, the trustees, meeting for the first time, raise a specific question which they discuss throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion. The question is: “Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people.” And they conclude that no more effective means than war to that end is known to humanity.

So, then, in 1909, they raise a second question and discuss it, namely:

“How do we involve the United States in a war?” … And, finally, they answer that question as follows: “We must control the State Department.” And then, that naturally raises the question of how do we do that. And they answer it by saying: “We must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country. And, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective."

Then, time passes, and we are eventually in World War I. At that time, they record in their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatch to President Wilson a telegram cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.12

We will return to Norman Dodd in later chapters, because he has much more to tell regarding how tax-exempt foundations, such as the Carnegie Endowment, the Rockefeller 13Foundation, and the Guggenheim Foundation, conspired to alter the substance of American history books. But, for now, the topic is war.


No discussion of the hidden agendas of war would be complete without reference to a think-tank study released in 1966 called the Report from Iron Mountain. Although the origin of the report is highly debated, the document itself hints that it was commissioned by the Department of Defense under Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara and produced by the Hudson Institute located at the base of Iron Mountain in Croton-on-Hudson, New York.

The Hudson Institute was founded and directed by Herman Kahn, formerly of the Rand Corporation. Both McNamara and Kahn were members of the CFR.13 The self-proclaimed purpose of the study was to explore various ways to “stabilize society.”

Praiseworthy as that may sound, a reading of the Report soon reveals that the word society is used synonymously with the word government. Furthermore, the word stabilize is used as meaning to preserve and to perpetuate. It is clear from the start that the nature of the study was to analyze the different ways a government can perpetuate itself in power, ways to control its citizens and prevent them from rebelling.

The report concludes that, in the past, war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal. It contends that only during times of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint. Fear of conquest and pillage by an enemy can make almost any burden seem acceptable by comparison.

War can be used to arouse human passion and patriotic feelings of loyalty to the nation’s leaders. No amount of sacrifice in the name of victory will be rejected. Resistance is viewed as treason.

But, in times of peace, people become resentful of high taxes, shortages, and bureaucratic intervention. When they become disrespectful of their leaders, they become dangerous. No government has long survived without enemies and armed conflict. War, therefore, has been an indispensable condition for “stabilizing society.”

These are the report’s exact words:

The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its “legitimacy,” or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power.

The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution by the forces of private interest, of reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer. … It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has insured the subordination of the citizens to the state by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood.14


The report then explains that we are approaching a point in history where the old formulas may no longer work.

Why? Because it may now be possible to create a world government in which all nations will be disarmed and disciplined by a world army, a condition that will be called peace.

The report says:

“The word peace, as we have used it in the following pages, ... implies total and general disarmament.”15

Under that scenario, 14 independent nations will no longer exist and governments will not have the capability to wage war.

There could be military action by the world army against renegade political subdivisions, but these would be called peace-keeping operations, and soldiers would be called peace keepers. No matter how much property is destroyed or how much blood is spilled, the bullets will be “peaceful” bullets and the bombs – even atomic bombs, if necessary – will be “peaceful” bombs.

The report then raises the question of whether there can ever be a suitable substitute for war. What else could the regional governments use – and what could the world government itself use – to legitimize and perpetuate itself?

To provide an answer to that question was the stated purpose of the study.

The conclusion was that, if a suitable substitute for war is to be found, then a new enemy must be found that threatens the entire world, and the prospects of being overcome by that enemy must be just as terrifying as war itself. The problem arises from the fact that, if traditional war between nations is to be ruled out, then the war must be waged against something other than a nation. It must be something less tangible, yet still terrifying.

The report is emphatic on that point:

Allegiance requires a cause; a cause requires an enemy. This much is obvious; the critical point is that the enemy that defines the cause must seem genuinely formidable. Roughly speaking, the presumed power of the “enemy” sufficient to warrant an individual sense of allegiance to a society must be proportionate to the size and complexity of the society. Today, of course, that power must be one of unprecedented magnitude and frightfulness.16

The Report from Iron Mountain analyzed many alternative “enemies” that could be created to make a war effort credible.

It considered,

No comments:

Post a Comment