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.
        After completing 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 15^th, 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.

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]

LOYALTY AND PATRIOTISM
        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 HATE AMERICA?
        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 [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 A.D.. The key to understanding is in the last phrase of the previous quote: “… until the war terminates.”
        What war?

THE BIRTH OF ISLAM
        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 A.D., 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.

PUTTING THE 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 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 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?

AMERICA 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 revenge.

A MOMENT OF TRUTH IN MEDIA
        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 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.

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 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 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]

BIN LADEN 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 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]

        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]

SAGE ADVICE 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 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.

PERPETUAL WAR
        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]

        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 sheepface 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 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:
WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. INGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.[11]

        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]

THE REPORT 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 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]

        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]

        When it comes to postulating a credible substitute for war … the “alternate enemy” must imply a more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction. 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 this purpose. … 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]

THIRTEEN PREDICTIONS
        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 be wrong. Unfortunately, most of them have already come to pass. Nevertheless, here they are exactly as conceived on September 14, 2001.

        1. 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 victory. 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 debate.

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 neutral ground.”[18] 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]

        3. 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 weapons. 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 organizations.

Epilogue: On November 14, 2001, President Bush announced that terrorists are to be tried by U.S. military courts, so it is possible that this prediction may be wrong – or at least premature. At the time of the attack on September 11, the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) had not yet been ratified by enough nations to fully empower it. It was still thirteen short of the sixty nations that the UN claims are required. However, the rate of new ratifications was accelerated after September 11, and there is little doubt that the required number will be reached in the near future. When that happens, the stage will finally be set for the fulfillment of this prediction.

        5. 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 authority.

        6. 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 the case. 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 smiled: “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.)

Epilogue: In October of 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 world, Congress passed a bill to expand the federal government into many areas forbidden by the Constitution and unblinkingly called it the USA Patriot Act. The full title is the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.” It couldn’t have been named better by Orwell, himself. In addition to putting the government in charge of all airport security, 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 “anti-government” 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 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]
        By January, 2002 – back in the United States – Congress was on a fast track rubber-stamping the following proposals emanating from CFR social engineers: (1) conversion of the states’ National Guard units into a federal police force; (2) establishing federal control over state and local law enforcement and crisis-response agencies; (3) extending federal authority over medical services; (4) authorizing federal agencies to use phone taps, open postal mail, and monitor email – without a warrant or even probable cause; and (5) requiring all citizens to obtain a national ID card tied into a federal and international data bank.
        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 reported back. 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, a member of the CFR, 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 CFR 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 involved.
        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:

        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.[29]

        The definition of “terrorism” has, indeed, been greatly expanded. We are now at the point where even those who voice concern over these police-state measures are said to be aiding terrorism and helping America’s enemies. This, of course, is considered to be a serious crime. Attorney General John Ashcroft, a member of the CFR, spoke to the Senate Judiciary Committee on December 6^th and said: “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists – for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies.”
        By the end of November 2001, 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 privacy?
        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 promoted as instruments for punishing tax evasion and controlling political unrest. Practically no one seriously believes that these measures 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.

        9. 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.”

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 me.”[30]

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 preferred icon.
        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.

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 Afghanistan.[36]

        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 far.

Behold the Grand Deception: The action is in the reaction. The war on terrorism is a war on freedom.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?
        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 long 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 into government and (2) the public has been denied vital information – which is why we put the wrong people into government. Therefore, any realistic plan for eliminating terrorism and recapturing freedom must have two objectives: (1) We must put the right people into government and (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. For that purpose, they now are available free from the Reality Zone web site. You can either print them from your computer to be used as handouts and envelope enclosures or you can send emails to your friends inviting them to visit the Reality Zone and read the report on line. That is so simple it can be done with a click of the mouse. At the bottom of the report is a form that reads: Send this report to a friend.  While you are on line, you can enter the names of those you would like to read this report. The Reality Zone will do the rest.
        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 the world.
        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 FOR FREEDOM
        This is no longer an issue just for Americans. It is now a global 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 Christians, 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.

G. Edward Griffin

The following items relating to this report are available from The Reality Zone.