Des Griffin's Newsletter -Nov. & Dec. 2009
To subscribe: e-mail Des Griffin at alert@midnightmessenger.com
 Dear Friend:
Karen and I trust you had a joyful THANKSGIVING, and that you and your family are coping satisfactorily with the strains and stresses of this sick world in which we live. Despite all the evil with which we are surrounded, there is still so much for which to be thankful!
It can be said with a great deal of accuracy that the history of mankind is mostly a history of wars. The Bible records that the first “war” was one between two brothers — Cain and Abel. It has been mostly downhill since then. For example, the history of the last century is a chronicle of nations fighting wars, paying for wars, clearing up after wars, or preparing for wars: World War I, World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the alleged wars on drugs, crime, and terror have all been fought over the last 100 years. All these wars were fought — at a cost of untold billions of dollars — for the alleged purpose of “defending” America from a multitude of “enemies.” Yet, over those decades of what Churchill once termed “blood, toil, tears, and sweat,” America has been systematically reduced to a bankrupt, virtually defenseless, shadow of her former self. However else they may be described, these wars failed to achieve their supposed objectives.
CHANGE OF DESCRIPTION
It’s interesting to note that, originally, the United States had a War Department. It was created in 1789. In 1949 its name was changed to the Department of Defense. Under the War Department, America was involved in very few “wars” apart from those fought within the territorial limits of what is now known as the United States. Since it became the “Defense” Department we have only been engaged in wars that have been fought in other, frequently isolated, parts of the world. One would be hard pressed to find good reason why any of these “wars” could honestly and factually be described as being in defense of the United States. As thoroughly documented in our books, Fourth Reich of the Rich and Descent Into Slavery?, the majority of these wars were planned, by design and execution, to have the exact opposite effect — the systematic destruction of the United States.
It’s long past time to acknowledge that, if one starts off with a false premise, one will automatically end up with a false conclusion. Most people have been preprogrammed to see “war” though the eyes of old definitions. In the past wars were accepted as being fought between “good guys” and “bad guys” — with little middle ground. That was mostly true, in the past! But today, if we accept that definition we find ourselves operating off a false premise.
Today, in order to clear the way for their planned new world order, all too frequently the truly “bad guys” are found to be masquerading as “good guys.” They present their victims — usually regimes they clandestinely helped establish and covertly financed (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, etc) — as being despicably criminal governments that need to be crushed. In Orwellian doublespeak, it’s called “regime change.”
Yes, things have certainly changed since the “old days.” Presently, it would be unwise to assume that what we see and hear on the “news” is the way things really are. In fact, reality may be almost the exact opposite to what you see and hear. It is a fact that truth is the first casualty of every war. As a result we would do well to ponder the words of Edwin Stanton, Abraham Lincoln’s secretary of war, regarding the purpose behind most wars. In his partly written autobiography, finally published in 1941, he states, “Wars are not fought to defeat an enemy. Wars are fought to create a condition.”
Some historians believe Stanton (1814-1869) was involved in Lincoln’s assassination. Although nothing was ever proven, it is interesting to note that within hours of Lincoln’s murder Stanton was in charge of the apprehension and prosecution of the conspirators involved. These proceedings were not conducted in a civilian court, but by a military tribunal. They were therefore completely under Stanton’s personal control. When the number of suspects in the assassination was reduced to eight, Stanton took the unprecedented step of ordering that heavy canvas hoods be made, padded one inch thick with cotton, with one small hole for eating, and no openings for eyes or ears. He further ordered that the bags be worn by the seven men day and night to prevent conversation. (Fearing a public uproar, Stanton excluded Mary Surratt, the only woman involved, from such cruel treatment). A ball of extra cotton padding covered the eyes so that there was a painful pressure on the eyes lids. Stanton forbad baths or washing of any kind. As a result, during the hot weeks of the trial the prisoners’ faces became increasingly swollen and bloated. Stanton adamantly refused to give the prisoners any concessions. Nor would he allow the removal of their rigid wrist irons and anklets, each of which was connected to an iron ball weighing 75 pounds. Four of the eight, including Mary Surratt, were found guilty. They were hanged. Three of the others were sentenced to life in prison. The eighth got 6 years.
WHAT DO WE MEAN, WAR?
Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines war as, “ A contest between nations or states, carried on by force, either for defense, or for revenging insults and redressing wrongs, for the extension of commerce or the acquisition of territory, or for obtaining or establishing the superiority and dominion of one over the other... Very few of the wars that have deluged the world with blood have been justifiable.”
Let’s examine a few recent wars in the light of Edwin Stanton’s observations regarding their probable purpose. For example, history books, movies, and TV programs present World War II as an epic struggle between the forces of good and evil: on one side were the “noble and magnanimous” British and, later, Americans. On the other, “the savage, goose-stepping Nazi hordes ... the bloodthirsty Huns who were bent on conquering the world.”
As shown in the June, 2009, AlertNewsletter the official history of World War II and the reality of what actually transpired are poles apart. Britain’s Winston Churchill (one of this writer’s early “heroes”) — at the command of his nefarious hidden backers — was the first to take aggressive action. Though Hitler, according to British war historian Liddell Hart, was actively seeking to avoid a major clash and hoped to enroll British help in destroying the communist Soviet Union, Churchill launched deadly air attacks on German civilian targets.
As documented in Descent Into Slavery?, Churchill led Britain into the war in order to, as Edwin Stanton declared, “create a condition” that, at that time, was known only to a few. That desired “condition” was to set the scene for the destruction of sovereign nations world wide in preparation for their absorption into the planned new world order. That plan, unrecognized by most, began to unfold following America’s entrance into the war.
Following the victorious North African campaign in 1942, the invasion of Sicily in July, 1943, and the invasion of Italy two months later, the Allied forces were on a roll. Little appeared to stand in their path as they swept Axis forces out of the way. There was talk of being “in Berlin by Christmas.” In his book, Calculated Risk, General Mark Clark takes up the story. He relates that, as a result of orders received from the highest level “our team was soon broken up and the Fifth Army was sapped of a great deal of its strength. A campaign that might have changed the whole history of relations between the Western world and Soviet Russia was permitted to fade away... These were decisions made at the highest level and for reasons beyond my field and my knowledge... [I]n my opinion... [this] was one of the outstanding mistakes of the war...
“Naturally, I am a prejudiced witness in this matter because it was my team that was being weakened, but I believe there is plenty of evidence from other sources to support my attitude. For instance, there was (German) Marshal Kesselring, whose intelligence section was completely mystified in coming weeks when our great forward drive failed to take advantage of its chance to destroy the beaten and disorganized German Army in Italy... Kesselring’s army could have been destroyed if we had been allowed to shoot the works in a final offensive” (pgs.368-370).
What were the “reasons beyond (Clark’s) field and knowledge”? This is where the profound nature of Stanton’s statement (that “wars are fought to create a condition”) takes on a startling new meaning. To understand the “reason,” we turn to Robert Sherwood’s book, Roosevelt and Hopkins. At the Quebec Conference of Allied leaders in 1943, a new war strategy was agreed upon. Based on a document titled Russia’s Position, ascribed to “a very high level United States military estimate ... [Communist] Russia’s postwar position in Europe will be a dominant one... [S]he will dominate Europe at the defeat of the Axis” (p.748)
That is the reason for General Clark’s amazement and frustration. On orders received from the highest level (President Roosevelt, through the Pentagon) Clark’s “tremendous fighting machine ... with horizons unlimited” was officially banned from sweeping on to victory. You see, it was planned that Russia be allowed (with the help of 12 billion [1940] dollars in American aid) to capture all eastern Europe and thus establish grounds for the planned “cold war.”
Then, following the Normandy (D-Day) landing on June 6, 1944 — and the “break out” led by General Patton that followed — the famous general was denied fuel and ammunition when he was about to sweep into Germany and achieve an early victory. Obviously, the Russians needed more time to conquer eastern Europe and grab, with Roosevelt’s secret approval, half of Germany. Later, because Patton wanted to “take care” of Russia — and thus do what historian Liddell Hart stated Hitler originally wanted British cooperation in doing — he was assassinated (hear the CD set, Deadly Assassins). We shouldn’t overlook the fact that all these nefarious activities contributed greatly to the deaths of tens of thousands of American military personnel. These were probably considered “collateral damage.”
A few years later we became embroiled in a war in Korea (1950-53). Here again, something nefarious was happening behind the scenes. The “war” wasn’t fought as should have been expected. In his autobiography, General Douglas MacArthur wrote: “I was ... worried about a series of directives from Washington which were greatly decreasing the potential of my air force. First, I was forbidden ‘hot’ pursuit of enemy planes that attacked our own. Manchuria and Siberia were sanctuaries of inviolate protection for all enemy forces and for all enemy purposes, no matter what depredations or assaults might come from there. Then I was denied the right to bomb the hydroelectric plants along the Yalu. This order was broadened to include every plant in North Korea that was capable of furnishing electric power to Manchuria and Siberia. Most incomprehensible of all was the refusal to let me bomb the important supply center in Racin... Racin was a depot to which the Soviet Union forwarded supplies from Vladivostok for the North Korean Army. I felt that step-by-step my weapons were being taken away from me” (Reminiscences, 1964, p.365). The war ended in stalemate, and Korea was divided at the 38th parallel. Thus, communism was allowed to spread further in Asia.
Then came the notorious Vietnam War, a conflict which JFK was endeavoring to avoid prior to his assassination. His successor, Lyndon Johnson, reversed his policies and expanded the conflict by sending more than 500,000 troops to that “theater of war.” As in Korea, the powers-that-be were not interested in winning the war. They planned to use the conflict for their own diabolical purposes, thus creating yet another desired “condition.” Although, as Senator Barry Goldwater documented in the Congressional Record in 1985, the war could have easily been won in a couple of months, Washington allowed it to continue for more than eight years. Goldwater produced Air Force reports showing that “rules of engagement” hampered and restricted operations by the Armed Forces... The air campaign against North Vietnam was centered upon attacking enemy lines of communication well below Hanoi while primary targets in the northeast where the bulk of North Vietnamese war-supporting resources were located, remained almost untouched.... Joint Chiefs and commanders in the field repeatedly transmitted to the President and Secretary of Defense proposals for putting more pressure on North Vietnam. Over and over the Chiefs protested the artificial limitations impeding our Nation’s objectives in the war...” These limitations “provided the North Vietnamese with numerous opportunities to recuperate from the effects of the air strikes. Facilities were rebuilt and reconstructed and dispersal of massive material aid from communist countries continued.” Air surveillance photos showed that tens of thousands of tons of war material from other communist countries were piled up in or near cities. But, on strict orders from Washington these targets were declared off limits. More than 58,000 of “America’s best” were killed in Viet Nam, with hundreds of thousands more physically maimed, or scarred psychologically. All this, as a result of “directives from Washington” that “tied their hands” and denied them the right to win the war.
Think! What was the “condition” the hidden manipulators wanted to create through this manifest betrayal of our own armed forces? American society was torn apart by anti-war riots and other social upheavals, sponsored by agents of the Establishment (The Strawberry Statement, in Fourth Reich of the Rich, pgs.106-109). The Vietnam War was also used as a cover to introduce and promote socialism and the welfare state — ideas that revolutionized American society, and moved it toward participation in a new world order.
In the years that followed we were “sold” numerous other “wars” — wars on all types of alleged enemies. As H.L. Mencken stated, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the population alarmed (and thus clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Consider the alleged “wars” on poverty, drugs, crime etc. All phony. All used to expand government, add to the debt, and reduce personal freedoms.
SOME CATASTROPHE LIKE PEARL HARBOR
In 2002, we witnessed the traumatic events of 9/11 which dovetailed perfectly with a 1996 plan laid out by the neo-conservative Project for the New American Century. This declared that “some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor” was needed in order to “create a condition” that would lead to control of the Middle East and the greater Islamic world. Voila, 9/11!
This led to passage of the “Patriot Act” and the “Homeland Security” legislation which, without Congress being given an opportunity to read their contents, eliminated many of our constitutionally-guaranteed Rights. Then came the phony “War on Terror” which was used as an excuse to invade the sovereign nations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Consider! How were those events used to “create a condition” favorable to the plans of the internationalists? As planned, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, with the death of over 1,000,000 civilians and the displacement of millions more, served the purpose of giving the United States a “greater military presence” in the Middle East. In Afghanistan, the “war on terror” paved the way for the alleged “overthrow of the Taliban.” But stop! Two decades earlier the CIA had created and funded both Al Qaeda and the Taliban for its own nefarious purposes. The “war on terror” enabled the CIA (reportedly the biggest trafficker of drugs in the world) to resume poppy (heroin) production which had previously been outlawed under Islamic Law. Drug money is used to fund these “black” operations. According the Lt-Col Daniel Marvin (Secret Assassins, see below), US troops are being used to protect those poppy fields. It might be said that, “there’s big money in them thar poppy fields”!
One other vitally important “condition” was created under cover of these devious activities. Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, testifies (in Murder In Samarkand) that what he discovered there “changed (his) whole world view in an instant.” Following 9/11 Uzbekistan allowed the Pentagon to rent military bases (for $500,000,000 a year in “aid”) from which to hunt for Osama bin Laden in neighboring Afghanistan. At these bases, captured “terror suspects” were subjected to almost unspeakable torture. Murray also says that US and UK troops are being used to guard an oil pipeline being built by American oil companies in that region.
We are all engaged in one kind of war or another. In the final analysis, our ultimate battle is spiritual in nature (Ephesians 6:10-19). We wage spiritual warfare against our own flesh (human nature), the world around us, and Satan who has “deceived the whole world” (Revelation 12:9). We can’t win those battles by shadow boxing or “beating the air” (I Corinthians 9:26). We must “go for the jugular.” “[T]he weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4).
Ultimately every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10-11). That is the “condition” to which we should all be looking forward.
Best Wishes, Des Griffin
|
