Thursday, September 20, 2007

War and the "New World Order"

We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion. And the question is this: 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 to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?”

-Norman Dobbs, U.S. Congressional Special Committee for the Investigate of Tax-Exempt Foundations (1982)

War is the ultimate means of attempting to change societies and reshape nations. It is through war that national economies and political structures can be forcibly restructured. War is, potentially, the ultimate economic shock therapy. The wars in the Middle East are stepping stones towards establishing a vision of global order that has been in the hearts and minds of the Anglo-American establishment for years. That vision is global ascendancy.

Towards the “New International Order” through the “Global War on Terror”

“There is a chance for the President of the United States [George W. Bush Jr.] to use this disaster [meaning the attacks of September 11, 2001] to carry out what his father…a phrase his father [George H. Bush Sr.] used I think only once, and it hasn’t been used since…and that is a new world order. Think about this. We already have the support of NATO in a remarkable historic departure.”

-Gary Hart, National Security in the 21st Century: Findings of the Hart-Rudman Commission (September 14, 2001)

On January 18, 2005 Henry Kissinger appeared on Charlie Rose, a television program on PBS, and talked about a “New International Order” being created by George W. Bush Jr. and his administration. [1] Henry Kissinger stated that within the next few years that humanity will see the emergence of the beginning of a “New International Order.” Kissinger also stated that the Bush Jr. Administration could bring about this state; “and it could well be this president, [meaning President Bush Jr.] that is so reviled by intellectuals, [who] will emerge as one of the seminal presidents...of this period…of American modern history.” [2]

When asked what George W. Bush Jr. has to do to bring about this “New International Order” by his interviewer, Kissinger paused and gave a vague answer that avoided mentioning the criminality of war. “He has to do some certain things and he has to have some luck,” Kissinger answered followed by “Luck is the residue of design.” [3] It should be noted that if luck is a residue of design then it is no longer chance, but a calculation of intent.

Briefly, the role of the American public was talked about by Charlie Rose with Kissinger who paused to pick his words carefully. Kissinger told his interviewer, Rose, that the United States is a nation whose public has no clue about American foreign policy. [4] In regards to the American public, the war agenda cannot move forward if the U.S. maintains its multi-cultural characteristics. It was this multi-cultural characteristic that initially presented the U.S. a problem in declaring war on Germany in both World Wars until the sinking of the RMS Lusitania and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. [5]

Thus, an end to a liberal North American immigration regime that ensures a multi-cultural environment in North America is a prerequisite to expanded American war(s). Zbigniew Brzezinski has written that “as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [amongst the American people], except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” [6] The E.U. is also beginning to follow suit. This premise by Brzezinski, an individual from within the ruling establishment of America, can be used to explain the demonization of Muslims and several national and ethno-cultural groups such as Arabs, Turks, and Iranians.

It is also worth noting that Gary Hart, a former U.S. senator from Colorado, implied on September 14 of 2001 that the “Global War on Terror” sponsored by the Bush Jr. Administration was a pretext for establishing the so-called “New World Order.” [7] Gary Hart also implicated NATO’s role in shaping this “New World Order.” [8] The project is to be implemented by military might.

A Unipolar World: Pax Americana?

“However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.”

-Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany (February 11, 2007)

During his interview, with Charlie Rose, Henry Kissinger had referred to what George H. Bush Sr. identified as the “New World Order.” This was a term frequently used by the former American president that became famous during the Gulf War. With the end of the Cold War and the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War, Georgia H. Bush Sr. said that humanity in 1991 was witness to the emergence of a “New World Order” that would be led by America . [9] The Gulf War was merely the beginning of this “New World Order.” The seeds had been planted in the Middle East for future wars and Eurasian expansion.

The Trilateral Commission, an organization founded in 1973 and consisting of the wealthiest and most powerful elites from the U.S., the E.U., and Japan, originally created the term that George H. Bush Sr. drew on. Their word was “New International Economic Order.” The Trilateral Commission’s terminology lays bare the economic fabric of this program. Military might is merely the enforcer of foreign policy, and foreign policy is based on economic interests.

An agenda of perpetual warfare and violence has been fueling the march towards global domination through economic means. In essence this war agenda has been an unbroken process watched over by the different presidential administrations of the United States .

Stepping forth from behind the Curtains: NATO’s Role in the Eurasian Roadmap

“The policies of the U.S. , since the end of the Cold War are complicated and vast. They involve an intent to dominate and the use of international organizations to advance U.S. economic and geopolitical interests. They also include the conversion of NATO into a surrogate military police force for globalization and U.S. world economic domination.”

-Ramsey Clark, 66th United States Attorney-General (October 6, 2000)

NATO has started replicating long-term American war tactics and strategy. NATO is creating a rapid response force, which involves a significant German role. The force is modeled on the U.S. Rapid Response Force, the forerunner of CENTCOM, and has a global reach. The transformation of the U.S. Rapid Deployment Force into CENTCOM was part of long-term Anglo-American war plans. The NATO force is projected to be able to deploy to any region in the world within five days and planned to be capable of self-sufficient, detached operations for approximately one month. The force will also have land, sea, and air components, including an aircraft carrier. [10]

It is apparent that control over Iraq was planned during the culmination of the Cold War by Anglo-American policy makers. The series of wars that have occurred since the Iraq-Iran War are debatably the products of a historical Anglo-American project in the Middle East — a project that was once a solely British project that predated the Cold War. The project to reshape and control the Middle East is part of the greater project to control Eurasia . Just as how this grand project was embraced by the U.S. , as the inheritor of British strategy, the project has been embraced by the Franco-German entente and NATO. Zbigniew Brzezinski argued in 1997 that “ Europe is America ’s essential geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia ,” or an entry point towards dominating Eurasia . [11]

From the statements and goals of U.S. officials going back to the 1990s NATO was projected to expand across the Eurasian landmass and set to embrace Japan , South Korea , and Australia in what Zbigniew Brzezinski identifies as the “trans-Eurasian security system.” [12] The characteristics of prospective conflicts seem to be slated to become dominated by NATO as France and Germany expand their roles in the “long war.” NATO’s role in the Eastern Mediterranean , the Red Sea , the Indian Ocean , Lebanon , and Afghanistan , along with NATO’s thrust into the post-Soviet niche and inner Eurasia , are all precarious indications of this.

Making Europe the Partner of America in the “Long War:” Enter the Franco-German Entente

“The victory over Iraq [in the Gulf War] was not waged as ‘a war to end all wars.’ Even the ‘ New World Order’ cannot guarantee an era of perpetual peace.”

-George H. Bush Sr., 41st President of the United States (March 6, 1991)

Brzezinski explained that although Japan was important to American geo-strategy, Europe as a geopolitical entity (via the E.U. and NATO) constitutes America ’s bridgehead into Eurasia . [13] “Unlike America’s links with Japan, NATO entrenches American political influence and military power on the Eurasian mainland,” and that “the allied European nations [were] still highly dependent on U.S. protection, any expansion of Europe’s political scope is automatically an expansion of U.S. influence,” Brzezinski explained in regards to Europe and Japan. [14] Brzezinski was paying more than just lip service to America ’s allies in continental Europe ; he was stressing that they were crucial, albeit as subordinates, to American global interests.

The strength of NATO would rest on the vitality of the European Union, an Anglo-American and Franco-German device. To emphasis this Brzezinski wrote that “the United States’ ability to project influence and power in Eurasia relies on close transatlantic ties.” [15] Brzezinski also added that France and Germany , the Franco-German entente, would be America ’s vital partners in NATO expansion and securing Eurasia , but a united Europe was an essential prerequisite. In regards to the Franco-German entente, Brzezinski wrote in 1998 that “In the western periphery of Eurasia, the key players will continue to be France and Germany, and America’s central goal should be to continue to expand the democratic European bridgehead.” [16] This was essentially the forecast of the “E.U. expansion” that has gone hand-in-hand with earlier NATO expansion since the end of the Cold War. According to Brzezinski it would be up to the Franco-German entente to led Europe: “ America cannot create a more united Europe on its own — that is a task for the Europeans, especially the French and the Germans.” [17]

None of the Pentagon’s geo-strategic plans can go forward without the E.U. and NATO. For this to happen it is essential that a strategic consensus between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente be forged. The Anglo-American alliance has pursued this track and deeper integration with the Franco-German side, while also taking an adversarial stance against the Franco-German entente. Iraq is a symbolic testimony to this rivalry while Lebanon and NATO expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean is a parallel testimony to the strategic cooperation between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente. A contradictory and confusing message is sent from these tracks, but there is always more to the picture. However, it is clear that Franco-German and Anglo-American interests must be synchronized for America to expand its global control.

The Endgame: A “Single Market” under One World Administration?

“I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer...”

-Major-General Smedley D. Butler, U.S. Marine Corps Commander (War Is a Racket, 1935)

After the Second World War, it was believed that from the nucleolus of Britain and American that a “New World Order” would be formed. Britain and America even had a combined military staff and combined chiefs of military staff. Visions for a singular global polity have vividly been tied to the Anglo-American establishment. In 1966, Professor Carroll Quigley, a noted American economist, wrote in his book Hope and Tragedy: A History of the World in Our Time that economics and finance vis-à-vis banking conglomerates were the engine in this drive and the real forces controlling national policies. Carroll Quigley wrote in regards to the Anglo-American alliance that “I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” [18]

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia,” insists Zbigniew Brzezinski. He also contends, “Now a non-Eurasian power [i.e., the U.S.] is preeminent in Eurasia — and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” [19] The former U.S. national security advisor has also stated, in 1997, that in order to co-opt the Franco-German entente a “Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, already advocated by a number of prominent Atlantic leaders, could also mitigate the risk of growing economic rivalry between a more united E.U. and the United States.” [20]

There is opposition in North America to what is believed to be the emergence of a projected “North American Union.” This North American entity would further amalgamate Canada, the United States, and Mexico, but the mechanisms for a grander global confederacy have already been drawn. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the creation of the E.U. were stepping stones towards this aspiration. Economics is the key that fuses these polities.

A summit between the E.U. and U.S. has shed light on plans for economic amalgamation. [21] The term used at the summit was “single market” by “renewing the Trans-Atlantic partnership.” [22] This is the same term used to describe the “common market” as it intensified Western European integration, which eventually gave birth to the European Union. At the summit President Bush Jr. met with Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, and Federal Chancellor Merkel. Frau Merkel, while officially there on behalf of the E.U., represented the interests of the Franco-German entente while President Bush Jr. represented Anglo-American interests. Jose Manuel Barroso as the President of the European Commission represented both Anglo-American and Franco-German interests because the E.U. is a joint Anglo-American and Franco-German body. America is a de facto E.U. power due to its alliance with Britain , one of the three major E.U. powers along with France and Germany.

An agreement was reached between the E.U. and U.S. to integrate the markets and regulations of America and Europe even further. This agreement was another layer to add to the strategic consensus that was reached at NATO’s Riga Summit. Both sides also stated that economics is the driving spirit in their relationship and that politics mattered very little. The liberal and conservative leaders of America and Europe are merely two sides of the same coin.

Decades after the end of the Cold War the globe is wrapped within a state of almost perpetual war dominated by the military might of America . The last lines in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives reveal the ultimate objective of Anglo-American policy: “These efforts will have the added historical advantage of benefiting from the new web of global linkages that is growing exponentially outside the more traditional nation-state system. That web — woven by multinational corporations, NGOs (…) already creates an informal global system that is inherently congenial to more institutionalized and inclusive global cooperation [a reference to global government].” [23]

Brzezinski goes on to predict that “In the course of the next several decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume the mantle of the world’s current ‘regent’ [a reference to the U.S.],” and “Geostrategic success in that cause would represent a fitting legacy of America’s role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower.” [24] All around the globe nation-states are being absorbed into larger and larger political and socio-economic entities. This is part of the story of globalization, but it has its dark side. This is the globalization of the few and not of the many.

The Fight for Civilization and the Gathering Storm

“When all is said and done the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism what the North African campaign was to World War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory. But compared to what looms over the horizon— a wide-ranging war in locales from Central Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the United States— Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle.”

-Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Gathering Storm (The Weekly Standard, October 29, 2001)

One cannot help but remember what was elucidated in 2001 during the start of the “Global War on Terror” by two members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), stating that Afghanistan was only part of a “wide-ranging war.” [25] Both Robert Kagan and William Kristol are deeply linked to U.S. foreign and military policy extending from writing presidential speeches to having a former spouse as the U.S. ambassador to NATO. It is not coincidental that a portion of their editorial from October of 2001 in The Weekly Standard has actually materialized. These men should be taken for their words when they say that Afghanistan is merely the “opening battle” compared to what is waiting in the horizon.

Referring back to Robert Kagan and William Kristol: “this war will not end in Afghanistan . It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity. It could well require the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. And it is going to put enormous and perhaps unbearable strain on parts of an international coalition that basks in contented consensus.” [26] The “international coalition” being referred to is NATO and the international military network based around the U.S. and the “unbearable strain” is war, but of an unknown scale. On August 10, 2007 Lieutenant-General Douglas Lute, the “War Czar” overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and any expanded theatre, publicly talked about restoring a mandatory military draft. [27] The march to war is not waning, but driving the world towards the abyss.

Afghanistan was the first volley in an advance phase of the global conflict that was in its preparatory stages decades ago during the Iraq-Iran War, the Gulf War, and the Kosovo War. Where this global conflict, this “long war” will lead us is unknown, but all humanity is in this together. The American people will sooner or later feel the pain of war as their freedom is effected. Autocracy is a prerequisite to grand empires. Brzezinski has pointed out that “ America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad,” and “never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy.” [28] Deviancy is being normalized all over the globe because of this global project. Those that are behind such projects must be reduced to social leprids, as outcasts, denounced by all societies.

Resistance in the Middle East: The Power of the People

“The Iraqi Resistance is by definition democratic as it is the spontaneous expression of a people who took its destiny into its hands, and is by definition progressive as it defends the interests of the people.”

-Hana Al-Bayaty (March 18, 2007)

Anglo-American planners have underestimated the capacity of the power of ordinary people and the human spirit. In the Middle East it has been the resistance of ordinary people that has brought militant globalization to a standstill. Popular resistance movements have bogged down the military might of the remaining global superpower.

A nation is only as legitimate as the people(s) who live in it define it. America is not at war with individual nations, but with the people(s) of these nations. Nor are the American people at war with these nations, it is the American ruling establishment and elites that are at war with these people(s).

The forces of resistance are the forces of the will of the people, without the support of the people none of them could last or stand up to some of the most powerful war machines in human history.

The wars in the Middle East are as much about choice as they are about the right to live. What is at stake is self-determination and liberty. These wars represent the drive to impose an overall monopoly of controls over other nations by a few who have hijacked the foreign policies of America and Britain to serve their own goals.

The Iraqi Resistance and the other resistance movements of the Middle East are movements of the peoples and by nature egalitarian. Would anyone in the so-called West dare label the French, Czechoslovakian, Greek, Libyan, Chinese, Malaysian, and Soviet resistance movements against Germany , Italy , and Japan during the Second World War as terrorist movements? However, the occupying Axis governments labeled these movements as terrorists. Did not France and the other areas occupied by Germany and the Axis Powers not have governments that said the Axis Powers were welcomed forces bringing stability as do the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan? For example in France there was the Vichy Government. When Germany was defeated the leaders of the Vichy Government in France were executed as traitors.

The U.S. government misleadingly claims that it is bringing democracy to these lands, but since when was democracy forced from the top down to the bottom? Is this not the opposite of democracy; things being forced down from the top to the bottom? Democracy is an expression of the masses that manifests itself upwards and not from the opposite direction.

No force on earth can defeat the popular will of the people; this is why domestic populations are manipulated into supporting wars. It is only division that allows small groups to take temporary reign over the people(s). However, for every scheme and plan to create division and anarchy amongst the people(s) of the world there is a plan to unite them and strengthen them. This is one of the greatest fears of many in positions of power. This is the fear of any awakening of large societal groups and populations.

There is no greater ally to the movements of resistance in the Middle East and beyond than unadulterated public opinion in the rest of the world. The people(s) of Britain, Israel, and the U.S. are also victims of their own governments who manipulate their fears and create animosity between them and other nations. This in itself is a great crime. What differences exist between nations are only a means to test the best of them.

Fear and hate are the weapons of the real terrorists, the masters of deception, and those who belittle others for profit and personal gain. These are the terrorists who give orders in positions of political leadership in the White House and elsewhere at the expense of their own people and the rest of humanity. The world is now embarking into the abyss of perpetual war and a period in which the contemplation of the use of nuclear weapons is being made. A stand must be made by individuals of good conscience and will. It seems possible that it will be a matter of time before the citizens of Europe, North America, and other lands will be compelled or necessitated to join the peoples of occupied lands in resistance.

War must be averted on two fronts; in the shorter-term (as differentiated from “short-term”) or near future, war must be averted from emerging in the Middle East, and in the longer-term in Eurasia. Only the resistance of the people and public opinion can stop war from enveloping the globe. Public opinion must translate into public action if humanity it to be spared from a massive war—a war that could prove to become a nuclear armageddon.

Countdown to 1984?

“In brief, the U.S policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America ’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change...”

-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)

In a twist of Orwellian fate, the earth seems closer to appearing like a rendition of the world in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. [29] However, the road ahead is not scripted. The future is only anticipated and planned, but never certain in a universe of infinite probabilities. Time will tell where the road ahead will guide us. Those that see themselves as masters of destiny have had their ideas proven wrong in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia, and Lebanon. It may look as if opposition to a war agenda is like tiny raindrops beating against an unrelenting mountain, but mountains can be eventually eroded by those tiny raindrops. There exists a “sensitive dependence on initial conditions,” commonly called the “butterfly effect,” whereas the flaps of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil may set off a tornado in Texas. Individual actions can offset the march to war that is unfolding on this planet.


[1] Henry Kissinger, A conversation with Henry Kissinger, interview with Charles P. Rose Jr., Charlie Rose (show), January 18, 2005 .
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] The U.S. government was secretly arming Britain during the First World War and profiting off the war. In regards to the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, a British passenger ship, unknown to the public at the time the ship was also carrying military supplies from the U.S. to Britain .

In the case of Pearl Harbour , the U.S. government was aware of a Japanese plan to attack the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Hawaii . American officials allowed the attack to take place to arouse public support for the entry of the U.S. in the Second World War. It should be noted that prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour the U.S. government had led a complete embargo of oil and materials to Japan and frozen all Japanese assets by July 25, 19 41 . Oil is needed to run economies and war and all strategists and military planners know this very well. Japan was baited into an inevitable war with the U.S. and decided to take the first shot. This benefited the U.S. government in mobilizing the American public to support the war effort in the Second World War just as the tragic events of September 11th, 2001 allowed the Bush Jr. Administration to launch the “Global War on Terror.” U.S. involvement in the Second World War was for economic purposes and had nothing to do with morality.

In the case of the RMS Lusitania the German embassy in Washington D.C. was trying to make clear to the Americans before it started sinking merchant ships helping Britain that it would engage in such activities. It should be noted that Britain was doing the same in both World Wars. U.S. officials are actually believed to have obstructed these attempts by the Germans in an attempt to involve the U.S. in the First World War.

[6] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives (NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p.211.
[7] Gary Hart, Transcript. National Security in the 21st Century: Findings of the Hart-Rudman Commission, Council on Foreign Relations ( CFR ), September 14, 2001 .
[8] Ibid.
[9] George Herbert Walker Bush Sr., Gulf War Victory Speech, (Address, Capitol Hill, Washington, District of Columbia, March 6, 1991).
[10] Bettina Berg, High readiness and global deployability, Federal Ministry of Defence (Germany), November 30, 2006 .
[11] Zbigniew Brzezinski, A geostrategy for Eurasia, Foreign Affairs, vol. 76, no. 5 (September- October, 1997): p.50-64.

Note: The writings from Brzezinski’s paper for Foreign Affairs and the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) were also used for his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives that had its first edition published in 1997. Brzezinski’s 1997 Foreign Affairs journal entry is a condensed synopsis of his 1997 book. Points and quotes cited from it are identical or almost identical to the writing from his 1997 book.

[12] Ibid.
[13] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (NYC, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), p.950.
[14] Brzezinski, A geostrategy for Eurasia , Op. cit.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.30.
[20] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.200.
[21] Desmond Butler, E.U. , U.S. Agree on Iran , Russia Disputes, Associated Press, April 30, 2007 .,,-6597779,00.html
[22] US and EU agree ‘single market,’ British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), April 30, 2007 .
[23] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.215.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Gathering Storm, The Weekly Standard, October 29, 2002, p.13.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Toby Harnden, ‘Return to conscription should be considered,’ The Telegraph (U.K.), August 11, 2007 .
[28] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.35-36.
[29] Refer to the polity and geographic boundaries of Winston Smith’s fictional world, in Orwell’s novel. In the fictional state of Oceania (which includes America, the British Isles, and Australia) there is absolute control exercised over all aspects of the lives of all citizens by one single entity, the Party, which has three political mottos: WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Millenarianism in US domestic politics

An apocalyptic view of history that has been gaining currency among fundamentalist US Christians since the 1970s is making itself felt in domestic and foreign US politics.

On 19 April 1995, the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City was destroyed by a huge blast that killed 168 people and injured 850 more. The attack on the government building, planned by US neo-Nazi Timothy McVeigh and accomplices, shattered the widespread perception that “terrorism” was a foreign phenomenon. Investigators believe that the main targets were the regional offices of several law enforcement agencies - including the Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) - since McVeigh was affiliated with the anti-government militia movement. The date of the bombing was also seen as highly significant by counter-terrorism experts, as 19 April was the second anniversary of the Waco standoff between the apocalyptic Branch Davidian sect led by David Koresh and ATF agents. Although some law enforcement officials had initially assumed that a foreign group had carried out the attack, it rapidly became clear that the Oklahoma City bombing had been perpetrated by members of a homegrown militia that regarded themselves as American patriots.

The political Apocalypse
In the run-up to the millennium of 2000 AD, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) commissioned a report into extremist activity by individuals and domestic groups that espoused apocalyptic views or might otherwise attach significance to the turn of the millennium. Especially among right-wing and racist groups, including militias and the Christian/White Identity movement, the vision of “a quick, fiery ending in an apocalyptic battle” was widespread, according to the FBI report entitled “Project Megiddo”. Among such right-wing groups, investigators found a widespread belief in conspiracy theories, especially the notion of a “New World Order” that would be imposed on the US by the UN. This extremist theory has more political than religious overtones, although its adherents share a number of common traits with apocalyptic fundamentalist Christians. Among these is the expectation of an imminent catastrophic confrontation between the forces of good and evil, as well as distrust of the government. For example, “The Turner Diaries”, a fictional account of a future “race war” by rightwing activist William Pierce, enjoys great popularity among radical groups. The novel has been described as the blueprint for the Oklahoma City bombing. The Megiddo Report found that “[a]lmost uniformly, the belief among right-wing religious extremists is that the federal government is an arm of Satan”, and that for such groups, “the Book of Revelation’s message fits perfectly into their world view”. The symbolism of Revelations is applied to the current perceived struggle, e.g. “Babylon” signifies the US government, which must be overthrown. The report lists a number of groups that have been or are still active in the US, including the Posse Comitatus, the House of Yahweh, the Waco-based Branch Davidian, the Aryan Nations, the True Church of Israel, and a number of groups associated with the Christian Identity ideology.

Post-9/11 domestic extremism
While the threat of right-wing domestic extremism may have taken a backseat in the public consciousness since the 9/11 attacks, there is little reason to believe that it has diminished in quality, although there are indications that militia membership numbers have gone down since the attacks on New York and Washington. In January 2002, the UPS parcel service delivered a package to a wrong address in Staten Island, New York. When the recipient opened it, he found several sets of false identification documents for the Multinational Force and Observers mission (which monitors the Israeli-Egyptian frontier), Defense Intelligence Agency IDs, fake Social Security cards and birth certificates, and a forged federal permit to carry a concealed weapon. Also inside the parcel was a short message that read: “Hope this package gets to you OK. We would hate to have this fall into the wrong hands.” The material had been sent by one William Krar, a US citizen who was actively involved in the right-wing militia movement, and was intended for a fellow extremist in New Jersey. Over a year later, in April 2003, federal agents searched a storage container used by Krar in the small Texas town of Noonday. According to media reports, what investigators found there exceeded their worst fears by far: a functional chemical bomb composed of sodium cyanide and hydrochloric acid, as well as an arsenal of firearms; three machine guns; silencers; hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition; 60 pipe bombs; a remote-controlled briefcase bomb; grenades; a landmine; explosives, detonators and blasting caps; and, ominously, army-issue atropine syringes for auto-injection. Atropine is a common antidote to military nerve gases. One expert calculated that with the material available and under ideal conditions, Krar would have been able to kill over 6’000 people with hydrogen cyanide gas.

Other enemies in the ‘war on terror’
However, despite the 9/11 attacks only months earlier, the US Justice Department kept the Krar story under wraps, and did not even issue a press release to say that they had possibly thwarted a massive terrorist attack with chemical weapons. This discretion contrasted noticeably with the usual public-relations efforts of US Attorney-General John Ashcroft, for example in the case of the alleged “dirty bomber” José Padilla. Some observers wondered whether the low-profile treatment of the case might be due to preconceptions in law enforcement as to who the “enemy” in the “war on terror” really was. Or, as Michael Reynolds pointed out, writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: “Had a similar sodium cyanide device been found in a storage unit rented by someone named Khalid or Omar, there is little doubt […] that it would have been the story of the week.” Regardless, Krar’s case never made the national headlines and was soon forgotten. The intended recipient of the fateful parcel, Edward Feltus, offered a glimpse of the conspirators’ worldview when he said he had wanted the forged documents because he anticipated a “disaster“ or a “government crackdown”. The expectation of an imminent final conflict or apocalyptic conflagration is widespread among ultra-conservative groups in the US, and this notion frequently blurs with a general distrust of the federal government in Washington. While there are only few individuals or groups that are prepared to carry out violent acts, many Americans appear to subscribe to one or more aspects of this mindset, including the perception that the US is in a state of moral decay, and that the dualistic conflict between the forces of good and evil must inevitably be resolved through some ultimate conflict before the onset of a new and better age.

Religious references in political rhetoric
One feature of US public debate that is often remarked on by foreign observers is the prevalence of religious references in political rhetoric, which many may find curious in a country where the separation of church and state has been upheld for more than two centuries. Both of the major political parties habitually tap into the undercurrent of religiously tinged vocabulary in public discourse, and are accustomed to casting policy issues in absolute terms of good and evil. In this national discourse, it is implied that the US has a special role in history and as an example to the rest of the world. However, over the past three decades, a particular brand of evangelical Christianity that in other countries might be considered a radical fringe phenomenon has entered into mainstream US culture, and its impact can be felt in many areas of domestic and foreign policy. It is characterized by apocalyptic teachings - a belief that the history of this planet is nearing its end - and a pessimistic world-view in which a final battle is expected to take place in the Middle East between good and evil before the onset of a 1’000-year kingdom of God. Some recurring rhetorical topics include the notion of the US as a “New Jerusalem”; a dualistic worldview in which the forces of good do battle against evil; the concept of a “nation under God” and distrust of international institutions that might serve as a secular “world government”; and the idea that the American nation, having offended God during the supposed “excesses” of the 1960s and 1970s, must repent or face divine retribution. This frame of mind is also known as “millenarianism” or “chiliasm” (from the Greek word for “thousand”), referring to the belief in a 1’000-year period marking the rule of Christ on earth.

The end of the world as we know it
More generally, “millenarianism” is the belief that the world as we know it will come to a cataclysmic end, and will be replaced after a final struggle by a perfect order and eternal peace - a recurring notion in many religions and belief systems throughout history. Although not a modern phenomenon, millenarian thinking has regained currency worldwide in recent decades. It can be found with variations in Muslim, Jewish, and Christian denominations, as well as in independent cults and other religious groups. British historian Norman Cohn has argued that secular political movements that hold out promises of a radical overthrow of society, followed by a utopian “reign of peace”, should also be included among the millenarian groups. Among these, Cohn cites National Socialism (Nazism), which hoped to establish a “Thousand-Year Empire” under German dominion, and Communism. In the US, the apocalyptic frame of mind has influenced domestic politics in the US within the context of the perceived “culture war” between conservatives and liberals - at least since the election of Ronald Reagan as US president in 1980. A whole genre of “prophecy literature”, which interprets current world events in the light of the imminent apocalypse, has sprung up and enjoys great popularity among evangelicals in the US. Among the best-known writers is Hal Lindsey, whose bestselling book “The Late Great Planet Earth” predicted in 1971 that Armageddon, a final battle of good against evil, was at hand. More recently, the 12-part “Left Behind” series by Tim LaHaye has been a huge success in the US book market, selling over 40 million copies. The novels are a fictional account of the “Rapture”, when - according to Christian millenarian belief - all true believers will be lifted up into heaven, while the rest of humankind must endure a period of tribulation (featuring wars, plagues, earthquakes, etc.) under the rule of the Antichrist, who in LaHaye’s books takes the human form of the UN secretary-general. One reason why these ideas may be accepted so readily in the US, in particular, is because they can be easily reconciled with the religiously tinged rhetoric of the political mainstream. While adherence to millenarian thought does not necessarily imply violent action, a close study of extreme right-wing groups in the US shows that nearly all of them have incorporated certain aspects of the apocalyptic worldview.

The Pilgrim Fathers
The best-known millenarian group during the Middle Ages were the Anabaptists of Münster in Germany, who briefly established a revolutionary rule in their town, which they expected to be transformed into a “New Jerusalem” as described in the book of Revelations. Their traditions may have come to North America with the first Protestant settlers, for example the Mennonite Brethren, who espoused a brand of eschatological millenarianism derived from the German Anabaptists. President Reagan during his two terms in office frequently quoted a sermon by one of the Pilgrim Fathers, John Winthrop, who said the New England settlements would be “as a shining city upon a hill” and a model to all nations. This image with its connotations of a “New Jerusalem” eventually became part of the foundation myth of the US, but Winthrop’s vision also carried within it portents of doom and divine retribution if the “shining city” failed to match up to expectations: “The eyes of all people are upon us,” said Winthrop, “so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us… [w]e shall be consumed out of the good land wither we are agoing.” In Reagan’s rhetoric, the Cold War was more than an ideological confrontation between West and East, it was a spiritual struggle, and was accordingly cast in starkly dualistic terms of good and evil. Notably, Reagan caused a diplomatic uproar when he referred to the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire”.

The spiritual aspect of the social conflict
But the “Gipper’s” use of millenarian vocabulary was not restricted to characterizing the superpower rivalry for global dominance. The domestic conflict between liberals and conservatives was described in similar terms. At the time of Reagan’s election, Christian conservatives in the US were determined to roll back the perceived excesses of the licentious “flower power” era and its aftermath. This social conflict, too, was characterized as having a spiritual and even supernatural dimension. “America is in the midst of a spiritual awakening and a moral renewal,” Reagan told an audience of evangelicals in 1983. The president was in no doubt that his was a divine mission: “There is sin and evil in the world, and we’re enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to oppose it with all our might. Our nation, too, has a legacy of evil with which it must deal,” Reagan added, linking his foreign and domestic policies in a single ideological web that had strong religious overtones: “While America's military strength is important, let me add here that I’ve always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith,” Reagan concluded, in a Cold War paraphrase of St Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians, which speaks about the Christian’s “spiritual armor” (Eph. 6:11-17). The New Testament reference would not have been lost on Reagan’s listeners at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals. The concept of a spiritual battle with evil is an inherent part of the millenarian world-view, and there is a long history of apocalyptic groups identifying their respective ideological opponents with the devil or the Antichrist.

The angel in the whirlwind
Since taking office in January 2001, US President George Bush has emulated Reagan’s ideological rhetoric, and has made greater efforts to appeal to fundamentalist voters than his father, former president George Bush Sr, or even Reagan himself did. Many secular Americans may have been puzzled by a cryptic passage in Bush’s first inaugural address, where - quoting from a letter by John Page to Thomas Jefferson - he said: “We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?” On the surface, these biblical images (taken from Ecclesiastes, and the books of Nahum and Jeremiah, respectively) testify to the sense of historic opportunity, vision, and mission, but also the responsibility felt by the founding fathers of the US. The course of history is portrayed as a “race”, in which victory is by no means assured and divine assistance is required to direct the affairs of state. That Bush does not intend to fail this divine mission already became clear during his 2000 election campaign, when he declared that the US was “chosen by God and commissioned by history to be a model to the world”. He displayed the same view of divine intercession in statesmanship in 2002, when he addressed the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast: “Since America’s founding, prayer has reassured us that the hand of God is guiding the affairs of this nation.” But the “angel in the whirlwind” also carries unsettling connotations of a day of vengeance and judgment, when divine retribution will be meted out in anger - a notion that is clearly derived from, and appeals to, the apocalyptic frame of mind. The dark undertone of doom is reminiscent of Winthrop’s “shining city on the hill” image, coupled with the fear of being expelled from this earthy paradise if the new society should fail to fulfill its role in the divine plan.

The theological framework
The worldview of millenarianism is teleological and assumes that history (or the current “age”) is moving purposefully in the direction of some inevitable conclusion. Adherents believe in divine intercession in the course of history, either directly or through human agents, and often see themselves as playing a key role in the universal scheme of things. Apocalyptic beliefs frequently occur together with the notion that society is corrupt and consigned to destruction, and while some believers are content to urge penitence and redemption, the more radical element may try to hasten the advent of the final days by violence. Another characteristic of Christian apocalyptic thought is the importance attached to contemporary events and their interpretation in the light of biblical prophecy, which is manifested in an obsession with signs and symbols that are interpreted in terms of their relevance for the imminent apocalypse. While eschatology, or the “study of the last things”, is part of the canon of orthodox theology, millenarian tendencies have traditionally been regarded with suspicion, and sometimes even as heretical by mainstream theologians. However, they have resurfaced periodically as part of popular devout movements throughout the history of Christianity. Apocalyptic tendencies among contemporary evangelical Christians are based on a selective reading of the Bible, especially the prophetic writings of the books of Isaiah, Daniel, and Revelations that speak of a final battle between the forces of good and evil and the creation of a “new heaven and a new earth”.

A strong ruler vs. holy anarchy
As a socio-cultural phenomenon, belief in millenarian creeds can have a twofold effect on believers. According to Richard Landes, a professor of history at Boston University and an expert on millennial studies, millenarianism has a consoling and conservative function as long as the period of redemption is still seen as a distant event. This transcendent aspect is frequently found in African-American culture, where the millenarian imagery of exile and tribulation, exodus, and a return to the “promised land” resonate strongly. But apocalyptic beliefs can also translate into anarchy and revolutionary enthusiasm if the faithful perceive that the Day of Judgment is at hand. In the latter case, those who believe the world is about to end may be galvanized into radical fervor if they believe they can thus hasten the advent of the apocalypse. According to Landes, these two aspects of apocalyptic millenarianism are reflected in two different visions of society. The “imperial” or “hierarchical” vision foresees a strong but just ruler who will bring a reign of peace. The “demotic” vision is one of “holy anarchy” where the dominion of man over fellow man will cease forever. Interestingly, traces of both aspects can be found in domestic US politics as well as in the arena of international relations - increasingly so since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. The instrumentalization of millenarian rhetoric for political purposes has proved to be a useful strategy in marketing Bush as an imperial commander leading his nation through the cataclysm of 9/11 and the cleansing fire of the “war on terror” to a new moral plane. It has been indispensable in enforcing - both domestically and at the level of international relations - the black-and-white worldview encapsulated in Bush’s famous dictum: “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Paradoxically, this imperial narrative of a strong and just ruler can only be upheld by casting the “war on terror” as a war for democracy and equality, ultimately holding out the “demotic” and even anarchic version of a millenarian future. US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, confronted with widespread pillage and looting throughout Iraq in the early days of the US occupation regime, remarked: “It’s untidy. And freedom’s untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes.” This tacit acceptance of violence and lawlessness as the price of transformation is what makes millennial thinking tantamount to playing with fire.


Millenarianism (sometimes spelled millenarism or millennarism) is the belief by a religious, social, or political group or movement in a coming major transformation of society after which all things will be changed in a positive (or sometimes negative or ambiguous) direction. Millennialism is a specific form of Millenarianism based on a one thousand year cycle.

Millenarian groups typically claim that the current society and its rulers are corrupt, unjust, or otherwise wrong. They therefore believe they will be destroyed soon by a powerful force. The harmful nature of the status quo is always considered intractable without the anticipated dramatic change. In Medieval millenarianism the world was seen as controlled by demons and even up to the nineteenth century Chinese millenarianism used something like this motif, but with "demon" having a slightly different cultural connotation. In the modern world economic rules or vast conspiracies are seen as generating oppression. Only dramatic change will change the world and change will be brought about, or survived, by a group of the devout and dedicated. In most millenarian scenarios, the disaster or battle to come will be followed by a new, purified world in which the true believers will be rewarded.

Millenarian beliefs can make people ignore conventional rules of behaviour, which can result in violence directed inwards (such as mass suicides) and/or outwards (such as terrorist acts). It sometimes includes a belief in supernatural powers or predetermined victory. In some cases, millenarians withdraw from society to await the intervention of God or another metaphysical force.

Millenarian ideologies or religious sects often appear in oppressed peoples.

Examples of the millenarian groups, movements and writings:

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
Fifth Monarchy Men
Plymouth Brethren
Branch Davidians
Yellow Turbans
Taiping Rebellion
Aum Supreme Truth
The Native American Ghost Dance
The Heaven's Gate cult
The Turner Diaries
The Lord's Resistance Army
Jehovah's Witnesses

In politics, millenarianism is often, but by no means always, linked to radical ideologies that share a similar belief in a transformation of society. These can be based in secular or religious ideas. In this way millenarianism is closely linked to Apocalypticism.