By M.K. Styllinski
“There is no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland.”
– George W. Bush, speech on August 7, 2002
Hoodwinking the public into accepting wars is a very old tactic indeed. Under the tutelage of the British Empire, the United States of America has been one of the most violent “democracies” on earth. So-called US “interventions” as world policeman have been taking place in the most vulnerable regions of the world for well over one hundred years. Given that most of the so-called threats against Western democracy are either a) weak and debt-ridden countries; b) installed with a US-NATO proxy dictator and c) ripe for resource picking, it comes as no surprise that a huge back lash is taking place against Anglo-American hegemony. America and Britain’s record of invasion doesn’t stack up with the “axis-of-evil” regimes such as Iran who have never attacked anyone in over 200 years.
There was a reason that the Bush Administration’s then Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove had on his desk copies of The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli and The Art of War by Sun Tzu: they are both classics in the psychology of deception and tactics of military warfare, something dear to this man’s shrivelled heart. This was the same senior advisor of the most powerful man who believes in the idea of a “reality-based community,” or that “… solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” Rather like his colleague Michael Leeden, another Neo-Conservative authoritarian who believes in deception and lies as a way to gain the upper hand. (More on Leeden in a later post).
Rove seems to be a fine example of political psychopathy which advocates an entirely subjective reality based on Empire-desire where reality is what you make it.
Or in his own words:
“That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” …“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” 
Government-sponsored terrorism or “synthetic terror” has been a part of warfare since before Sun Tzu’s Art of War from the 6th Century BC. If the enemy is too large then the abiding manoeuvre is always to divide in order to conquer. Since “All warfare is based on deception” it stands to reason that secrecy under the guise of freedom must underlie all operations, where future plans are as:
“… dark and impenetrable as night …” and where the public are programmed to: “Engage … with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.” 
The September 11th attacks was one such moment.
The focus of deception was gradually transferred from the battle-field and mercenary colonialism to the civilian populations as targets. Western democracy began to rise through electoral politics and International banking and their weapons manufacturers had to move with the times by using propaganda and social science to deliver jingoistic consent for globalism. After all, if a British or American Empire is seeking new countries to invade, convert and exploit you need a ready supply of willing young men to die for it.
From the British Empire to Pax Americana, once the belief that “God is on our side” is promoted as self-evident through the progress of power, then targeted countries inhabited by “savages”, “communists” or “Islamists” are then cultivated and demonised as “evil,” the beliefs systems of which have been purposely assisted to manifest extremes in order to make it easy for the mass mind. Bombing and black ops can begin so that Christian democracy can elevate a backward nation and control its destiny for resource management. The public consciousness is then flooded with propaganda in press, film and chat shows to “stiffen the sinews” and “conjure up the blood” so that they might find themselves in a condition of self-righteous indignation and actually demand that their governments take action. It becomes as easy to equate the Sandinistas of Nicaragua with an insidious plot to topple American freedoms as it is to fuse Osama bin Laden with Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destructions with Iraq.
US-Israeli hegemony steered by the hidden hand of British banking interests has made the business of neo-imperialism the number one reason for conflict in the world. As long as the cosy relationship with arms manufacturers and US defence Dept. continues to buy Congress, which in turn, restricts any alternative economic models then the Empire can continue to expand under the guise of “intervention.”
So, why the constant reference to pearl harbour when people mention the Neo-Cons and 9/11?
Lt. Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence designed an eight step plan for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in order to provoke an attack from Japan and thus involve the United States in the War. The October 1940 memorandum called for an economic embargo, stopping weapons shipments to Japan’s adversaries and the blockade of Tokyo’s ports preventing access to essential raw materials. This could only lead to a confrontation with America.
The FDR government and the US Navy had foreknowledge of the attack in much the same way as factions within the Bush Administration and related shadow government agencies knew about 9/11 and perhaps had a hand in its planning. US cables tracked the Japanese fleet to Pearl Harbour, keeping tabs on its course right up to the “surprise attack”. While top US Navy personnel were barred from accessing intelligence reports regarding the approach of the Japanese destroyers and their pilots. The deaths of over three thousand American service men; massive destruction of the US Navy fleet and the transformation from huge public resistance to the war to unbridled horror and outrage at such a dastardly act, ensured entry into the War, central to US dominance in the Asia-Pacific. 
The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank with a blueprint for a contemporary Pearl Harbour writ large in Neo-Conservative lettering. PNAC signatories and members included Florida governor Jeb Bush; Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was indicted for perjury in October 2005; Elliot Abrams, who became Bush’s top Middle East aide at the National Security Council; John Bolton, Bruce Jackson, Norman Podhoretz, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dr. Dov S. Zakheim, chairman William Kristol, directors Robert Kagan and the Dark lord Dick Cheney himself, were all hawks desperate for perpetual war as policy.
PNAC’s 1997 statement of principles wished to remind Americans of past “lessons” and “consequences” which called for a “Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.” Signatories believed: “we need to increase spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future.”
Reading beneath the euphemistic verbiage, it means they desperately wished to increase defence expenditure in order to float their imperialistic visions or in other words : “strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values.” This translates as power-sharing with countries who think the same, but only insofar as it supports their objectives for global dominance. Regime change equates to “challenging” nations which do not agree with US foreign policy having little to do with humanitarian and democratic values. Thus the: “need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad” means an expansion of covert strategic, tactical and psychological operations or “dirty tricks.” This is all wrapped up in the polite, civilised language of politicians seeking only a benign form of interventionism which actually masks a ponerological injunction of decidedly grim intentions. They state a: “need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” 
The term “Neo-Conservatism” was coined by political scientist Michael Harrington in the mid 1970s to describe a new form of conservatism which incorporated elements of intellectual liberalism and socialist principles. It claimed to be anti-Utopian yet was even further removed from the pragmatism and reality consensus it professed to embody. Jewish Intellectual and former Trotskyist Irving Kristol has been dubbed the “godfather” of Neo-Conservatism and generally recognised as being responsible for its genesis. As discussed in the World State Policies and World Revolution series, Neo-Conservatism is an exact fusion of Fabian socialism, Keynesian/neo-liberal economics and the ideology of international revolution suffused with a Christian Zionist bias. In other words, it is a new form of neo-fascism most obviously through the complete corporatisation of the State which is then exported internationally through the geopolitics of coloured revolutions. It is little wonder it has attracted turbo-charged psychopaths like bees to honey. It is political psychopathy writ large, or as exactly as psychologist Andrew M. described such channels of pathology in the title of his profoundly important book: Political Ponerology: The Science of the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes.
Getting high on Irving Kristol’s intellectual justification for a new kind of conservatism wasn’t the only major influence for the rise of Neo-Conservatism and the subsequent formation of PNAC. A bedrock of inspiration and ideology can be found in an 1999 essay called “Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (by Which we do not mean Nous)” written by Neo-Conservative academic Abram Shulsky and PNAC co-founder Gary Schmitt. Both of these intellectuals studied under the Jewish political philosopher Leo Strauss who arrived in the United States in 1938 and a key figure in Neo-Conservative ideology. Given that he believed that all intelligence work comprises of deception and counter-deception across governments and society at large, the essay can be seen as a subtle exercise in the importance of understanding the vagaries of cultural differences assigned to “regimes” and how such knowledge could institute a form of change. It doesn’t take an academic’s mind to reveal that the type of change sought for is distinctly fascist in flavour, with a high proportion of its advocates straddling both Zionist and Conservative Establishment circles. Thus, “Zio-Conservatives” is often a more appropriate label.
Kristol maintains, it is not an ideology but a “persuasion,” a way of thinking about politics rather than a compendium of principles and axioms.  The importance of concealing one’s true intentions from the public while informing the party faithful with coded words is also a part of the the art of deception. In terms of polity and the intelligence apparatus, it has never been clearer that this is the only thing that mattered. Necessity is not the mother of invention for Neo-Conservatives; rather necessity gives birth to deception as a means to policy ends. 
Schmitt and Shulsky admit that political life: “… may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception.” So, they chose to embrace this deception fully and completely, which is hardly a surprise given that Strauss was an advocate of secrecy, hierarchy and Elite authoritarianism where the psychology of leaders was of little consequence.
Straussian principles of “Might is Right” and the “Ends justify the Means” is music to the ears of authoritarian personalities which channel their frustrated energies into modern think-tanks, much like PNAC forerunner. Secular democracy was contemptuous for Strauss and in true authoritarian form he believed in the fusion of Church and State as a means to exert control over the masses, but not necessarily to prop up any religious belief in the architects themselves. Ordinary people once again, are seen as a mass of uncontrolled instinct to be sternly managed by Papa Strauss.
And this brings us back to Pearl Harbour. What is perhaps most telling in the context of 911 and PNAC is the Machiavellian nature of Straussian belief which was twisted into something beyond the mere philosophical. Shadia B. Dury Professor of political science at the University of Calgary and author of Leo Strauss and the American Right (1999) states: “Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in,” which stems from Strauss’s belief: “… that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat,”… he maintained that “if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured.” 
Military pre-eminence via the changing face of technology is the subject explored in the figurehead document of PNAC which we have mentioned before: “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (1997) and which discusses “… the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”. The Pearl Harbour event is mentioned again later on in the document: “Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age”. 
Though the emphasis is on the unpreparedness of military technology, when taken with Neo-Conservative politicising as a whole, this is merely cover for a pre-emptive doctrine which, if not signalling a nudge and a wink towards the planning of a monumental false-flag operation of which only a select handful may have been aware, then it was the tacit support of such a scenario, should the opportunity present itself.
9/11: The New Pearl Harbour?
From banking, think-tanks and the military the same script is being followed. The reference to “catastrophic and catalyzing event” can be found by arch-esoteric writer for the Elite crowd Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard and his discussion on America where he states: “… it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” This is no throw-away comment coming from one of the creators of the Al-Qaeda network, alongside the CIA involvement in the Soviet-Afghan conflict. Tracing this meme further, we can find his comrade David Rockefeller in an address to the United Nations Business Council in 1994 touting the same fervent desire: “We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
Following the PATRIOT Act and PATRIOT Act II was the Home Security Act which was recently updated by former human rights lawyer President Barack Obama. The executive orders currently in the Federal Register can be passed without a whiff of red tape should a National emergency suddenly materialize. And most importantly, prior congressional approval is not needed for such directives – they are instantly effective once the National Emergency is implemented.
The body responsible for enforcing these orders is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which has long been recognized as being a whole lot more than just an administrative agency during times of environmental disaster or National emergency. In fact, it has the most extraordinary capabilities that would leave any dictator beaming with anticipation. The true nature of FEMA has been nurtured for its role in overseeing the coming police state by branches of a Shadow Government that have been working steadily behind the scenes in conjunction with the military to ensure that a potent National Emergency can be engineered as part of the Plan for World Order. These branches include the National Security Council, Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Program Office, all of which have an interesting history of deception. FEMA is a hermetically sealed symbol of totalitarian muscle, answering only to the National Security council, which in turn answers only to the Shadow Government.
Executive laws are immediately enforceable but they cannot be restricted or altered by any department or individual – not even congress. If we follow the narrative from commentators in the last ten years from all sides of the political divide are we to expect, at some point in the future, a “terrorist attack” on Congress? Striking at the heart of a perceived democracy would put paid to any ideological resistance at home, and to certain degree, abroad. Remarkably, there already exists a commission to take over in the event of all or most of congress somehow being unable to fulfil their civic duty. Ingeniously named the “Continuity of Government Commission” they had this to say on their main page:
“In the fall of 2002, the Continuity of Government Commission was launched to study and make recommendations for the continuity of our government institutions after a catastrophic attack. September 11th raises the possibility that foreign enemies might seriously disrupt the filling of vacancies in Congress, presidential succession, and achieving a quorum for the Court so much so that our basic institutions might not function in a normal constitutional manner.” 
Behind these apparently measured PNAC proposals was masked a virulent form of war-mongering. In January 1998, PNAC published an open letter to President Clinton urging “the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power”, by military force if necessary in order to protect: “… our vital interests in the Gulf.” Clinton, running along more Fabian lines did not like to be pressured by anyone, least of all the Zio-Cons who were commonly known by lower level CIA personnel as the “Crazies.” Nevertheless, these signatories which included Abrams, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, and U.N. ambassador John Bolton went on to become the main backers of the 2003 genocide in Iraq and their dreams of conquest. 
A few days after the 9/11 attacks, a PNAC letter pressured President Bush to extend the parameters of engagement regarding the War on Terror by including Saddam Hussein and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. The need to encompass any and all – even if entirely unconnected – was a driving force in the minds of PNAC members. So, too were the groups true colours revealed in relation to the prevalence of Zionism and its agents. In an April 2002 letter to Bush on Israel, Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority (PA) were deemed “a cog in the machine of Middle East terrorism,” and that America must therefore end support for not only the PA but the Israeli-Palestinian peace process itself. And peace is the last thing Zio-Conservatism wishes to see, being counter to the policy of perpetual war and the theocracy of Zionist visions. PNAC members wrote that: “Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight,” calling for Bush to “accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power.” 
Though The Project for a New American Century hung up its armchair warmongering in 2006 in part due to bad press, it was unlikely that Neo-Con hawks would simply fade into the background. True to form, Son of PNAC made its debut in 2009 yawningly named The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) founded by the same Straussians William Kristol, Robert Kagan and former Bush minion Don Senor. Unbelievably, the faintest whisper of humility and caution was notably absent when it sponsored a conference pushing for a U.S. “surge” in Afghanistan and a greater involvement of the US military in the country. As reporters Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe write: “… the formation of FPI may be a sign that its founders hope once again to incubate a more aggressive foreign policy during their exile from the White House, in preparation for the next time they return to political power.” 
They have never left however. A May 2010 report (PDF) from the a Washington, DC think tank, Brookings Institute state quite clearly that Neo-Conservatives such as former Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Irving Kristol’s son Bill Kristol and writer and former politician Richard Perle are working their (black) magic within the Obama Administration.
Keep in mind that just because a fusion between certain elements of the Three Establishment Model (3EM) defined the 1990s and early 2000s does not mean the pathology behind it has suddenly been replaced. Obviously, no such redemption was forthcoming since Obama-Biden administration has brought with it the same strains of pathology with even more disasterous results. That ideological baton has merely been passed to the Liberal Establishment who have exactly the same objectives of globalism as the Conservatives and Zionist arms, they just differ in the means to get there. Once again, what is at stake here is the choice, not between different parties or ideologies – that is an illusion – but the choice between a world locked into a perpetual high-level psychopathy that normalises greed, hatred and destruction to erode the human spirit, or the clawing back of a state of equilibrium where such extreme negativity is called out for what it is – evil. As the US police state gains momentum it seems that they are, once again, a step closer to their ideal.
For the PNAC and FPI teams the September 11th Attacks were so well timed it was miraculous.
The question is, do you believe in miracles?
 ‘Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush’. By Ron Suskind, The New York Times Magazine.October 17 2004.
 Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Ch. VII.
 Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor By Robert Stinnett. Published by The Free Press, First Edition, 1999. ISBN-10: 0684853396.
‘Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (by Which We Do Not Mean Nous)’ by Gary J. Schmitt and Abram N. Shulsky 1999.
 ‘Leo Strauss’ Philosophy of Deception’ By Jim Lobe, AlterNet, May 18, 2003. | Leo Strauss and the American Right by Shadia B. Drury, 1999. Published by Palgrave MacMillan ISBN-10: 0312217838.
 PNAC, Rebuilding America’s Defenses ( p.51) | Ibid. (p.53)
 Continuity of Government: Current Federal Arrangements and the Future Harold C. Relyea Specialist in American National Government Government and Finance Division: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/RS21089.pdf
 PNAC Letter to President Clinton on Iraq, January 26, 1998 -www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm
 PNAC Letter to President Bush on Israel, Arafat and the War on Terrorism, April 3, 2002. http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm
 ‘Neo-Con Ideologues Launch New Foreign Policy Group’ By Jim Lobe and Daniel Luban, Inter Press Service News Agency http://www.ips.net