by G. Edward Griffin
The concepts I would like to share with you today were set to paper
three days after the terrorist attack against the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon on
September 11, 2001. I printed about a dozen
copies and gave them to family and friends. Since then I have added
historical data, but the concepts and the message remain unchanged.
Many of the predictions I made have already come to pass; but any
pride I might have in being right is far offset by the grim
substance of those predictions.
The Creature from Jekyll Island, I felt that I
still had one more book to write and that it would be called The
Freedom Manifesto. I also knew that I would need a dramatic issue in
the first chapter to capture attention. Well, the terrorist attack
on September 11 was certainly that – and more.
I told those on my email list that I would send them my expanded
report, but then I became bogged down in gathering material for the
book. By that time, the report had become huge and had to be divided
into chapters. All of that took about four weeks. So, what started
out to be a four-page report on terrorism metamorphosed into
components of what I call The Grand Deception, which I anticipate
will become Part One of the book.
The first edition of The Grand Deception
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
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.
KNOW THE ENEMY
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
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
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
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.
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.
WHY DO THEY
The first question we need to ask is, why? Why do the terrorists hate
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
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
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
“Slay the idolaters wherever you
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.”
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
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
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.”
THE BIRTH OF
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.
QUR’AN INTO HISTORICAL CONTEXT
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
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
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
BECOMES WORLD POLICEMAN
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
A MOMENT OF
TRUTH IN MEDIA
On Wednesday evening (September 12), Henry Sigman, reported on
“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.
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
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
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
FROM THE MIND
OF BIN LADEN
In May of 1998, ABC reporter John Miller interviewed bin Laden at
his camp on a mountaintop in Southern Afghanistan. This is what he
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
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.
PROTECTED BY U.S.
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
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
Increasing authority without eliminating
corruption is a prescription for tyranny.
FROM THE PAST
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
... 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,
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
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
… 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
AN ICON FOR
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 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
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
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
WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS
SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.11
THE HIDDEN AGENDA
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
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 13 Foundation, and the
Guggenheim Foundation, conspired to alter the
substance of American history books. But, for now, the topic is war.
FROM IRON MOUNTAIN
No discussion of the hidden agendas of war would be complete without
reference to a think-tank study released in 1966 called
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
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
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
DEFINITION OF PEACE
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
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
The war against environmental pollution was considered to
hold the most promise, but even that would lack sufficient emotional
fire to match the hysteria of a real war.
The Report concluded:
When it comes to postulating a
credible substitute for war … the “alternate enemy” must imply a
more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of
It must justify the need for taking and paying a “blood price”
in wide areas of human concern. In this respect, the possible
substitute enemies noted earlier would be insufficient. One
exception might be the environmental-pollution model, if the
danger to society it posed was genuinely imminent. The fictive
models would have to carry the weight of extraordinary
conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actual
sacrifice of life.
… It may be, for instance, that gross
pollution of the environment can eventually replace the
possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as
the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the
principal sources of food and water supply, is already well
advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this
respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only
through social organization and political power.
… It is true
that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for
… But the pollution problem has been so widely
publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that
a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be
implemented in a politically acceptable manner.
However unlikely some of the possible alternative enemies we
have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be
found of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to
peace [world government] is ever to come about without social
disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such
a threat will have to be invented.17
In 1966, international terrorism was
still in its infancy, and the possibility of inventing it as a
global “enemy” did not occur to those who drafted the Report from
Iron Mountain. Had they thought of it, there can be little doubt
that it would have been at the top of their list. Everything about
the war on terrorism perfectly fits the template for a new and
credible enemy so necessary for the so-called “stabilization of
It is always dangerous to make predictions – especially if they are
put into print. If they prove to be wrong, they can haunt you for
the rest of your life. Nevertheless, here are thirteen predictions I
made three days after the terrorist attack against the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon. I said then that I fervently hoped they
would l be wrong. Unfortunately, most of them have already come to
Nevertheless, here they are exactly as conceived on September
The first prediction is that we will
not be given genuine options regarding the war on terrorism. We
will have only two choices, both of which are disastrous. It
will be similar to the Vietnam War in which Americans were
expected to be either hawks or doves. Either they supported the
no-win war or they opposed it. They were not given the option of
Their choice was between pulling out of the war and turning the
country over to the Vietcong quickly – or doggedly staying in
the war and turning the country over to the Vietcong slowly -
which is the way it turned out. Likewise, in the war on
terrorism, we will be asked simply to choose sides. Either we
are for freedom or for terrorism. The wisdom of U.S.
interventionism will not be allowed as a topic for public
Epilogue: On October 8, 2001, President Bush announced
the beginning of military strikes against Afghanistan and said:
“Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader. Every
Nation has a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no
On the day that Congress approved the first
$20 billion to finance the war on terrorism, Senator Hillary
Clinton said that the government should make it clear “to every
nation in the world, you’re either with us or you’re not, and
there will be consequences.”19
Even so-called conservative
spokesmen have succumbed to the party line. On October 31, The
Young America’s Foundation, based in Hendon, Virginia – an
organization that promotes conservative issues on the nation’s
college campuses – found it alarming that some professors were
questioning the wisdom of U.S. interventionist policy.
One professor was quoted as saying
such a horrible thing as “We need to think about the resentment
all over the world felt by people who have been victims of
American military action.” Another professor is quoted as saying
“You can’t plant hatred and not expect to reap hatred.” Such
statements are not acceptable to the Young America’s Foundation
which views them as offensive and harmful to the war effort.20
Most American political leaders are
now committed to world government, so the second prediction is
that they will crow about how America will not tolerate
terrorism, but they will not act as Americans. Instead, they
will act as internationalists. They will turn to the UN to lead
a global war against terrorism. They will seek to expand the
capacity of NATO and UN military forces. Although American
troops will provide the backbone of military action, they will
operate under UN authority.
The third prediction is that the
drive for national disarmament will be intensified. This will
not lead to the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, but
merely to the transfer of those weapons to UN control. It will
be popularized as a means of getting nuclear and bio-chemical
weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The internationalists
promoting this move will not seem to care that many of the
world’s most notorious terrorists now hold seats of power at the
UN and that the worst of them will actually control these
This will be documented in Chapters Four and Five.
Epilogue: On October 20, 2001, Former Soviet leader,
Mikhail Gorbachev, announced that nuclear and chemical
disarmament should become a top priority in the war on
terrorism.21 On November 13, 2001, US President Bush and Russian
President Putin announced that, as a means of fighting global
terrorism, they agreed to cut their nuclear arsenals by
two-thirds.22 These reductions will be monitored by the UN.
Russia has broken every similar agreement in the past, so there
is no reason to expect that pattern to change. It must be
remembered that Putin is a former high-ranking officer of the
Soviet KGB, which created most of the international terrorist
The fourth prediction is that, if
any terrorists are captured, they will be brought before the UN
World Court and tried as international criminals. This will
create popular support for the Court and will go a long way
toward legitimizing it as the ultimate high tribunal. The public
will not realize the fateful precedent that is being established
– a precedent that will eventually be used to justify bringing
citizens of any country to trial based on charges made by their
adversaries in other countries.
Anyone who seriously opposes the
New World Order could then be transported to The Hague in The
Netherlands and face charges of polluting the planet or
committing hate crimes or participating in social genocide or
Epilogue: On November 14, 2001, President Bush announced
that terrorists could be tried by U.S. military courts, so it is
possible that this prediction may be wrong. But the play is not
yet over. The entire team that sets U.S. policy in this regard
is in favor of expanding the authority of the UN World Court,
and the possibility of using captured terrorists as a means to
that end must be very tempting to them. We shall see.
The fifth prediction is that the FBI
will be criticized for failing to detect an attack as extensive
and well coordinated as this. In reply, we will be told that the
FBI was hampered by lack of funding, low manpower, and too
little authority. Naturally, that will be followed by an
increase in funding, additional manpower, and greatly expanded
The sixth prediction is that,
eventually, it will be discovered that the FBI and other
intelligence agencies had prior warning and, possibly, specific
knowledge of Tuesday’s attack; yet they did nothing to prevent
it or to warn the victims. This will be a repeat of what
happened at the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in
Oklahoma City six years previously.
Why they failed to do so is
the topic of Chapter Four.
Epilogue: The first inkling of prior knowledge came a
week after the attack when it was learned that an unusually
large amount of money had been placed into the stock market to
acquire puts for American and United Airlines stocks. Puts are
bets that the value of a stock will decline. When the market
value of those stocks plummeted after the attack, those who held
puts had their investment increase by eight-hundred percent.23
The FBI closely monitors the stock market to detect precisely
this kind of unusual pattern. However, the FBI had much more to
go on than that.
On January 6, 2002, the Orlando Sentinel (in Orlando, Florida)
reported that a prisoner in the local county jail had tipped off
the FBI a month before September 11 that he had information
about a pending terrorist attack in New York City and other
targets. Walid Arkeh was an American citizen who previously fled
to England to avoid prosecution on charges of dealing in stolen
goods and slapping his child. He had been arrested in Britain
and sent back to the United States after spending ten months in
prison there. During that time he became friendly with three
Muslim inmates whom he identified as Khalid al-Fawwaz, Adel
Abdel Bary, and Ibrahim Eidarous. They had been imprisoned
because of their involvement in the 1998 bombing of the American
embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Tanzania.
Arkeh told the FBI that the terrorists confided to him that
something big was about to happen in New York. He said he would
provide additional details if they would help him reduce his
jail sentence. He was not exactly a model citizen, to be sure,
but at least he was trying to alert authorities to the planned
attack. He said: “I didn’t want to be a terrorist. I wasn’t
working for them, but I became a part of them.” He thought the
FBI would be eager to have this information, but such was not
As reported by the Orlando Sentinel:
[Arkeh] said the FBI agents didn’t appear impressed, and one
stood with his hand in his pocket impatiently asking, “Is that
all that you have? That’s old news.”
Arkeh went on to explain that, after the attack on September 11,
FBI agents returned to his cell and threatened that he could be
charged with co-conspiracy if he told anyone that he knew about
the attacks ahead of time.
The impact this had on him is
evident in the Sentinel’s report: When pressed by the Sentinel
about whether he knew about the Sept. 11 hijacking and targets
ahead of time, Arkeh, a compact and muscular man, paused a long
time and looked down at the ground. Then he raised his head and
“No. If I did, that would make me a co-conspirator.”24
Shortly after that, Arkeh was moved to an undisclosed location
by the authorities, and his name, his photograph, and all traces
of his presence in the system disappeared from the Department of
Corrections web site. To the outside world, he ceased to exist.
(The author is currently compiling
information about government foreknowledge of terrorist training
in U.S. flight schools, receiving tips from intelligence
agencies in France, ignoring the boasts of earlier terrorists
involved with the first bombing of the World Trade Towers, etc.
These items will appear in future editions of this report.)
The seventh prediction is that much
of the war on terrorism will be waged against Americans inside
their own country. New laws, international treaties, and
executive orders will severely restrict travel, speech, privacy,
and the possession of firearms. Americans have consistently
rejected these measures in the past, but there will be much less
opposition when they are presented in the name of fighting
Government agencies will demand to
know everything about us, from our school records, our
psychological profiles, our buying habits, our political views,
our medical histories, our religious beliefs, the balances in
our savings accounts, our social patterns, a list of our friends
– everything. This will not be unique to America.
program will be carried out in every nation in what is left of
the free world.
Epilogue: In October, 2001, Congress adopted so-called
“anti-terrorism” legislation that was a classic example of
Doublespeak right out of
Orwell’s 1984. In Orwell’s world, “war
is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength.” In our
real world, Congress passed a bill to expand the federal
government into areas forbidden by the Constitution and
unblinkingly called it the Patriot Act. In addition to putting
the government in charge of all airport security – which many
Americans think is a good idea – it also requires private
citizens to inform on each other.
Any person engaged in a trade or
business is now required to file a report with the government if
any of their customers spends $10,000 or more in cash. That is
just the beginning. The bill easily can be amended in the future
to require a report of any “suspicious” or “antigovernment”
activity.25 In this regard, Canada appears to have taken the
lead. On November 8, 2001, the Canadian parliament passed a bill
allegedly to control money laundering related to terrorism. It
was similar to a law that existed in Nazi Germany requiring all
lawyers to inform the government of suspicious anti-government
activity on the part of their clients.
The Canadian law goes much further.
Instead of involving only lawyers, it also requires bankers,
realtors, investors, and other financial agents to report
whenever they suspect a client may be involved in money
laundering. Money laundering is defined by most governments
today as any financial transaction that is not reported to the
tax collector, including cash sales, tips, and barter. With that
definition, literally everyone can be suspected of money
laundering. If people fail to inform on each other, they are
subject to a fine of $2-million and a five-year jail sentence.26
On November 24, it was revealed that the Canadian National
Defense Act was amended in response to the terrorist attack
against the U.S. and now gives the Canadian government power to
close off any geographical area, to forcibly remove people from
their homes inside that area, and to be exempt from any
obligation to compensate them for their loss.
The justification for doing so need
not be for national security. The government can act in the name
of furthering “international relations.” That means, of course,
that there are no definable limits on this power.27 Back in the
United States, the FBI now is free to place wiretaps on
telephones without a court order. On November 21, 2001, the FBI
announced its new eavesdropping operation called “Magic Lantern”
that allows it to secretly plant a program into anyone’s
computer so that every stroke made on the keyboard will be
That means the government now can
capture a record of everything you create on your computer,
including private passwords, encrypted files, and even deleted
files.28 While the government clamors to prevent citizens from
having any secrets whatsoever, it moves in the opposite
direction for itself. President Bush issued Executive Order
13223 that forbids public access to presidential papers, even
those belonging to previous administrations. The only
researchers who now have access to these important sources of
historical data are those who are deemed to have a “need to
know” – which means only those who support the government’s spin
on important issues.
Even Congress is now outside the
“need-to-know” category. White House briefings to Congressional
leaders on military operations in the Middle East have been
greatly curtailed and now contain little more than what is given
to the press. In typical Orwellian fashion, we are told that, if
America’s elected representatives were to know what the
President is doing as Commander-in-Chief, it would be a threat
to national security.
In mid-November, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order
authorizing terrorists to be tried in secret military tribunals
without any of the due-process legal protections afforded in
civilian courts. At the end of World War II, even Nazi war
criminals were tried in public, but now, anyone deemed to be a
terrorist can be tried in secret, even when the death penalty is
Who will be classified as terrorists?
The disturbing answer to
that question was given by Congressman Ron Paul as he addressed
the House of Representatives on November 29, 2001.
He said: Almost all of the new laws
focus on Americans citizens rather than potential foreign
terrorists. For example, the definition of “terrorism,” for
federal criminal purposes, has been greatly expanded. A person
could now be considered a terrorist by belonging to a
pro-constitutional group, a citizen militia, or a pro-life
organization. Legitimate protests against the government could
place tens of thousands of other Americans under federal
surveillance. Similarly, internet use can be monitored without a
user’s knowledge, and internet providers can be forced to hand
over user information to law-enforcement officials without a
warrant or subpoena.29
By the end of November,
approximately 1,200 people had been arrested as terrorist
suspects or as sources of information regarding terrorism.
Formal charges were not brought against them. They were not
allowed to have legal representation. They were not brought
before a judge or given a hearing or trial. They were simply
arrested and imprisoned without any Constitutional authority to
do so. Furthermore, no one outside of government even knows who
they are. Their names have been kept secret. This, allegedly,
was to protect their privacy. Incredible! These people were
thrown into prison and denied due process of law; yet we are
expected to believe that the government is concerned about their
All of these encroachments against freedom have been high-agenda
items among government agencies for many years – long before
September 11. Most of them were originally conceived as
instruments for punishing tax evasion and controlling political
dissent. Practically no one seriously believes that these
measures 20 would have prevented the September attack. Only the
hopelessly naive can fail to see that the war on terrorism has
merely provided an excuse to put them into effect.
The eighth prediction is that those
who speak out against these measures will be branded as
right-wing extremists, anti-government kooks, or paranoid
militiamen. The object will be to isolate all dissidents from
the mainstream and frighten everyone else into remaining silent.
It is always possible to find a few genuine crackpots; and, even
though they will constitute less than one percent of the
movement, they will be the ones selected by the media to
represent the dissident view point.
A little bit of garbage can stink up
the whole basket. In spite of that, responsible dissenters will
still be heard. If they begin to attract a following, they will
be arrested on charges of hindering the war effort, committing
hate crimes, terrorism, tax evasion, investment fraud,
credit-card fraud, child molestation, illegal possession of
firearms, drug trafficking, money laundering, or anything else
that will demonize them in the public mind. The mass media will
uncritically report these charges, and the public will assume
they are true.
There is nothing quite so dramatic
as watching someone on the evening news being thrown against the
wall by a SWAT team and hauled off in handcuffs. TV viewers will
assume that, surely, he must be guilty of something. His
neighbors will shake their heads and say “… and he seemed like
such a nice person.”
One of the few remaining obstacles
to the New World Order is the Internet, because it allows the
public to bypass the mass media and have access to unfiltered
information and opinion. Therefore, the ninth prediction is that
laws will be enacted to restrict the use of the Internet. Child
pornography has long been the rallying cry to justify government
control. Now, the specter of terrorism and money laundering will
be added to the list. The real object will be to eliminate
the voices of dissent.
Epilogue: The Public Safety and Cyber Security
Enhancement Act of 2001 automatically classifies any “cyber
crime” as an act of “terrorism.” (Check this out. It comes from
The tenth prediction is that the war
on terrorism will be dragged out over many years or decades.
Like the war on drugs after which it is patterned, there will be
no victory. That is because both of these wars are designed, not
to be won, but to be waged. Their function is to sensitize the
population with fear and indignation, to provide credible
justification for the gradual expansion of government power and
the consolidation of that power into the UN.
Epilogue: On October 21, 2001 (37 days after this
prediction) General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the U.S. Joint
Chiefs of Staff, said: “The fact that it could last several
years, or many years, or maybe our lifetimes would not surprise
The eleventh prediction is that it
will take a long time to locate Osama bin Laden. A TV reporter
can casually interview him at his mountain stronghold, but the
U.S. military and CIA – with legions of spies and Delta forces
and high-tech orbiting satellites – they cannot find him. Why
not? Because they do not want to find him. His image as a
mastermind terrorist is necessary as a focus for American anger
and patriotic fervor.
If we are to wage war, there must be
someone to personify the enemy. Bin Laden is useful in that
Of course, if his continued evasion
becomes too embarrassing, he will be killed in military action
or captured – if he doesn’t take his own life first. Either way,
that will not put the matter to rest, because bin Laden is not
the cause of terrorism. He is not even the leader of 21
terrorism. He is the icon of terrorism. If he were to be
eliminated, someone else would only have to be found to take his
place. So it is best to give each of them as much longevity as
possible. That is why terrorists like Arrafat, Hussein, Qadhafi
and Khomeini, not only are allowed to remain in power, but
receive funding and military aid from the U.S. government. They
are the best enemies money can buy.
If that sounds far-fetched, consider the words of Fareed Zakaria,
former editor of Foreign Affairs, the official journal of the
Council on Foreign Relations. (The goal of the CFR is the
creation of world government, and virtually all U.S.
foreign-policy planners –from the President on down – belong to
In the September 16, 1996, issue of
Newsweek magazine, Zakaria said,
This issue will
be covered in Chapter Five.
Epilogue: On November 15, 2001, USA Today reported:
“Several hundred Army commandos have
been posted at road blocks outside Kandahar to help prevent
Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters from escaping. The U.S. soldiers
are interviewing captured Taliban commanders and setting up
surveillance gear, such as radar, heat detectors and cameras. …
Teams of two to 12 men are searching abandoned caves, tunnels
and buildings for maps, documents or computer disks that could
lead to bin Laden, officials said. From the skies, pilots are
using heat detectors to locate warm bodies in cold Afghan caves.
CIA agents are using cash to bribe sources for information about
bin Laden’s whereabouts, officials said.”31
On November 26, the first strong
signal was given from the White House that, eventually, bin
Laden might be replaced by Saddam Hussein as the media icon of
terrorism. “Saddam is evil,” said President Bush, and he hinted
that, after the conquest of Afghanistan, the war on terrorism
may be carried to Iraq.32
Meanwhile, bin Laden remains the
On December 19, 2001, USA Today reported: “One defense official
claimed a bin Laden escape could benefit the war on terrorism
because popular support for continued military action in other
regions would remain strong.”33 Please re-read that statement.
The twelfth prediction is that, when
the Taliban is toppled in Afghanistan, a new government will be
established by the UN. Like Kosovo before it, a so-called UN
“peacekeeping” military force will remain behind, and the
country will not be independent. There will be talk about how it
will represent the Afghan people, but it will serve the agendas
of the internationalists who will create it. The sad country
will become just another pin on the map showing the location of
yet one more UN province.
Epilogue: Even before the Taliban had been toppled in
Afghanistan, the wheels were set in motion for a coalition
government to be organized under UN supervision. On November 28,
on the first day of the UN-sponsored negotiations to that end,
representatives of the Northern Alliance agreed to most elements
of the UN plan. Even at that early date, UN spokesmen announced
that they intended to install a multi-national military force,
under its control, after the fighting is over.34
After nine days of negotiations,
representatives of the various Afghan factions agreed to the UN
blueprint. The agreement specifically specified a multinational
“peacekeeping” force to be stationed in Kabul and provided for
its future expansion into the rest of the country.35 On December
19, it was learned that a dozen countries were preparing to
contribute military forces to a UN “peacekeeping” force in
The thirteenth prediction is that,
while all this is going on, politicians will continue waving the
American flag and giving lip service to traditional American
sentiments in order to placate their constituency who must never
be allowed to know that they are being delivered into slavery.
Yes, actions have consequences, and the long-range consequences
of this act of terrorism are even more devastating than the loss
of life and property that has been the focus of the media so
Behold the Grand Deception: The action is in the reaction. The
war on terrorism is a war on freedom.
That is the end of Part One, as it will
appear in The Freedom Manifesto. I cannot predict how long it will
take to complete the remaining chapters, but I can tell you that I
have made this a high priority project. If you would like to be
notified when it is published, I suggest that you visit our web site
and request to be added to the mailing list.
WHAT CAN BE
In the meantime, the crucial question is what can be done now,
especially considering the lateness of the hour. This is where it
can really get depressing. At the present time, there is nothing
that men and women of good conscience can do to alter the forces of
destruction that have been unleashed against them.
As long as the nations of the world are
controlled by politicians with a globalist and collectivist mindset;
as long as they use every problem and crisis as an excuse to expand
the power of government; as long as the great majority of our fellow
passengers on this spaceship called Earth are unaware of these
ploys, then absolutely nothing can be done. But notice I said “as
The “as-long-as” part of the equation contains two elements that
underlie all of our problems:
(1) we have put the wrong people
(2) the public has been denied
vital information – which is why we put the wrong people
Therefore, any realistic plan for
eliminating terrorism and recapturing freedom must have two
(1) we must put the right people
(2) we must see that the public
gets the information it has been denied
The political objective is important,
but it cannot be reached without first achieving the educational
objective, so that is where we must begin.
A WAY TO
BYPASS THE MASS MEDIA
The first step is to mass distribute copies of this report.
purpose, they now are available free from
the Reality Zone web site.
I urge you to send this report to everyone you know. Everyone. Don’t
worry about how they will react. Some have been so sheltered from
reality that they will not be able to accept the validity of this
information, no matter how much documentation is provided. After
all, they are not getting any of this from the mass media. Besides,
people don’t want to hear bad news.
But, as events unfold and as the
predictions become historical facts, our friends eventually will
come on board.
It is my intent to make the Reality Zone a cyberspace information
hub where people from all over the world can come for reliable
information on the global crusade for freedom. In addition to this
report, you will be able to get a printed transcript of the video
documentary, No Place to Hide; The Strategy and Tactics of
Terrorism. Many other items will be added as we expand. Anyone who
wants to translate these materials into a language other than
English is encouraged to do so and send it to us for posting. It is
our goal to have the documents available in every major language of
With the capacity to send electronic documents over the Internet, we
finally have a way to bypass the mass media. Just imagine what would
happen if everyone of the 5000 people on my email list would forward
a copy of this Report to everyone on their email list. And then
imagine that ten or fifteen percent of those would do the same.
It would be theoretically possible to
reach every person with an email address on the entire planet within
a few months.
A GLOBAL FORCE
This is no longer an issue just for Americans. It is now
battle that cuts across all lines of nationality, race, religion,
language, culture, economic status, and level of education. This is
a battle in which we are all united by common cause. That includes
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Americans, Afghans, Iraqis, Russians,
Chinese, Mexicans, Somalians, Croatians, Serbs, Australians,
Canadians – literally everyone in the world who seeks freedom.
I am not talking about governments. I am
talking about people. We must not be tricked into pitting Christians
against Muslims or Muslims against Jews, or Jews against
or any other combination of religion against religion. No matter how
we may differ over theology, the one thing on which we agree is that
it is God’s plan for all men to be free. That is our common cause,
and that is the rallying cry that will bring millions into our
ranks. We will not be able to defeat the global force of despotism
without building a global counter-force for freedom.
We are now engaged in World War III, a war involving every nation
and every human being on the planet. You and I are involved whether
we like it or not. We cannot escape. There is no place to hide. The
only question is when will we commit to battle. If we wait until
there is no longer any controversy and all of our friends clearly
see that the war on terrorism is a grand deception, then we will
have waited too long.
The time to step forward is now.
Sun Tzu, The Art of War (New York:
Delacorte Press, 1983), p. 18.
Five days after I wrote these words,
USA Today carried an eye-witness report from Pakistan echoing
the same sentiment. It said: “In Pakistan this week, thousands
have demonstrated. They’ve burned American flags, raised
clenched fists, and held aloft banners telling the world what
they think of the USA. One, written in English, asked a stunning
question: ‘Americans, think! Why does the whole world hate
you?’” See “Extremists’ hatred of U.S. has varied roots,” USA
Today, Sept. 19, 2001, p. 1.
The preceding historical synopsis is
drawn from Will Durant, The Age of Faith, (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1950), pp.155-174; also The Columbia Encyclopedia, 3rd
edition, p. 1397; also “The World of Islam,” by Don Belt,
National Geographic, Jan. 2002, pp. 76-85.
Although the Dome of the Rock
presently has a Muslim mosque built upon it, the Jews and
Christians also regard it as a holy site. It is the location
where, according to Scripture, Abraham was tested by God to see
if he would obey God’s command, even to the extent of
sacrificing his only son, Isaac.
Miller Interviews Bin Laden (May 1998), Sept. 27, 2001.
By the end of the December, 2002,
more civilians had been killed in the military action against
Afghanistan than in the terrorist attack against the World Trade
Towers and the Pentagon – and the war on terrorism was just
beginning, we were told, soon to be taken to other countries.
See “Afghanistan’s civilian deaths mount,” BBC News, Jan. 3,
On October 10, 2001, Congressman Ron
Paul introduced the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of
2001, which would embody this proposal. So far, the bill has not
received wide support.
“Clinton’s bin Laden gaff,” The
Australian Sunday Times, Jan. 7, 2002,
“FBI and US Spy Agents Say Bush
Spiked bin Laden Probes before 11 September,” by Greg Palast,
The Guardian, Nov. 7, 2001,
George Orwell, 1984 (New York: New
American Library/Signet, 1949), pp. 153-164.
The Hidden Agenda video is available
from The Reality Zone, P.O. Box 4646, Westlake Village, CA
91362, phone (800) 495-7596 or from the Internet:
For an analysis of the authenticity
of the Report from Iron Mountain, see Chapter 24 of the author’s
The Creature from Jekyll Island; A Second Look at the Federal
Reserve, 3rd edition (Westlake Village, California: American
Media, 1998). Available from
Leonard Lewin, ed., Report from Iron
Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace (New York:
Dell Publishing, 1967).pp. 39, 81.
Ibid., p. 9.
Ibid., p. 44.
Ibid., pp. 66-67, 70-71.
“In this conflict, there is no
neutral ground,” USA Today, Oct. 8, 2001, p. 5ª.
“Congress ready to pay the price to
hit culprits,” by William M. Welch and Kathy Kiely, USA Today,
September 13, 2001, p. 5ª.
“Professors blame U.S. for
terrorism,” by Jon Daugherty, WorldNetDaily.com, Article_ID=25137,
October 1, 2001.
“Gorbachev: Anti-Terror Coalition
Should Become Coalition for New World Order,” Associated Press,
October 20, 2001, FOXNews.com.
“U.S., Russia to sharply cut
arsenals’” by Laurence McQuillan, USA Today, Nov. 14, 2001, p.
“Suspiciously timed bets against
airlines expire today,” by Greg Farrell, USA Today, Oct. 19,
2001, p. 1B.
“Inmate says he told FBI about
danger to New York,” by Doris Bloodsworth, Orlando Sentinel,
Jan. 6, 2002,
“New Federal Patriot Act Turns
Retailers into Spies against Customers,” by Scott Bernard
Nelson, The Boston Globe, www.bcentral.com, Nov. 20, 2001.
Ottawa approach akin to Nazis, judge
charges,” National Post, November 9, 2001, p. A4.
“Anti-terror law gives military too
much power: experts,” by Ian Jack, National Post,
www.nationalpost.com, Nov. 24,
“FBI develops ‘Trojan horse’
software for better eavesdropping,” by Ted Bridis, AP,
www.sacbee.com, Nov. 21, 2001.
“Keep Your Eye on the Target,” by
the Honorable Ron Paul, Congressional Record, November 29, 2001.
“U.S. war may last decades,” by
Karen Masterson, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau, Oct. 21,
2001, 11:48PM, HoustonChronicle.com.
“Bin Laden hunt escalates as U.S.
aid workers freed,” by Barbara Slavin, Jonathan Weisman and Jack
Kelley, USA Today, Nov. 15, 2001, p. 1ª.
“Bush turns America’s fury towards
Saddam,” by Stephen Robinson, News Telegraph,
Nov. 26, 2001.
“Bombs halted; search continues,” by
Jonathan Weisman, USA Today, Dec. 19, 2001. p. 1ª.
“Deal near in Afghan talks,” by
Elliot Blair Smith, USA Today, Nov. 28, 2001, p. 1-A.
“Afghan factions sign landmark
deal,” BBC News,
Dec. 5, 2001.
“Bombs halted,” op. cit.