This week’s news is disturbing for several reasons. It certainly is sad to witness the escalation of terrorism and war, particularly now in Libya, Tunisia, and Syria, but it is the element of contradiction that shouts from the headlines of those stories that is, perhaps, the most disturbing of all.

The contradiction in the stories in the Middle East is that it is almost impossible to tell who is fighting terrorism and who is protecting terrorism. A recurring thread is that the US is leading a great military campaign against ISIS but it also delivers weapons to ISIS, provides aid to ISIS, attacks ISIS with powder-puff blows, and does everything to prevent Russia from knocking the hell out of ISIS. 

Turkey and Egypt, allies of the US, are performing similar roles. In the name of fighting terrorism, they somehow manage to do more harm to those who genuinely are fighting ISIS than to ISIS itself. If you haven’t yet picked up on this consistent contradiction, this week’s news will make it abundantly clear.

Whenever there is a consistent contradiction, it is a sign that it isn’t a contradiction at all but that our expectations are based on wrong assumptions. That clearly is the case with the war on terrorism.

To resolve the contradiction, we must discard the assumption on which it is based. The assumption is that Western nations are fighting terrorism because they want to put an end to violence, death, and destruction. The replacement assumption is that they are fighting terrorism precisely because doing so creates violence, death, and destruction. In other words, terrorists are essential and must not be eliminated. Otherwise, there would be no one to fear and no justification for war.

Absurd as that may seem, you will find that it removes the contradiction and explains literally all aspects of the war on terrorism – and more. But, why would any normal person want war?

The answer is that the people making these decisions are not normal. They belong to a small, elite core of global financiers and politicians who have an agenda that fires their imaginations and dreams, but it requires the complete restructuring of society. They want to replace nationalism with a global government based on the model of collectivism. They believe that the way to bring that about is to destroy all existing systems that do not fit that model and then build a “new world order” on top of the rubble.

This strategy was dramatically illustrated in a stained-glass window in the Beatrice Webb house in Surry, England, former headquarters of the Fabian Society. The Fabians are a highly influential organization promoting global collectivism since 1884. Former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was a Fabian.

Across the top of the stained-glass window appears the last line from Omar Khayyam:

Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire

To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,

Would we not shatter it to bits, and then

Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire!

Beneath this line, the mural depicts George Bernard Shaw, one of the better known Fabians, and Sidney Webb striking the Earth with hammers.* 

Once you understand the concept of deliberate destruction as a strategy for preparing the way for something that is “to the heart’s desire”, you will find that there are very few contradictions in the news.

G. Edward Griffin

2016 February 19

*For an explanation of the wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing and other elements of this mural, see p. 87, The Creature from Jekyll Island; A Second Look at the Federal Reserve.