Tuesday, 30 January 2007

3:5 Keep attacking and threatening your enemies.

The classic manual on all of this is, of course, that magnificent (if brutal and cynical) book by Clausewitz On War, which can be usefully supplemented by Machiavelli’s marvellous advice in The Prince, as well, nowadays, many manuals put out by your Departments of War (sorry, we should have said of Defence).

Let us remind you of a few of their central bits of advice, things like: act first, constant preparation and arms stockpiling, strike mercilessly, be prepared, iron and fire, deception and lying and so on.

So this is how you should behave in Christ’s wars. It was how we treated the heathen Saracens in the Crusades, how we exterminated the Albigensian heretics, how we destroyed the savages around the globe who opposed your glorious kingdoms. There is no room for scruple in these matters.

If all this is true of ordinary wars, imagine how much more it is the case in a religious war against civilization’s enemies. These enemies will use any tactics against you. Even if, as yet, their attacks have been limited (the whole twin towers was less than a month’s civilian death toll in Iraq), we must not be lulled, for they would kill many times that number if they could, and rejoice at the carnage. Even if the amount of death and destruction you have brought down upon them is many times more than what they have done to you, do not relent. Even if they have not done many of the things which they could have done with ease; poison the water systems, spread plagues, bomb nuclear plants, you should still speak angrily of them as ‘totally unscrupulous’. You must continue to describe them as utterly ruthless and as using all means against you. Then you are justified in whatever methods you like.

Sunday, 28 January 2007

3:4 How to persuade people of the huge danger of the enemy.

So far we have mainly concentrated on individual Evil Ones (terrorists) or small cells and networks within your nations. Unfortunately, however, these servants of Satan even come to control a whole nation or state with all its weapons. In that case you must adopt another strategy. What you must do is to attack and destroy that state, depose the Evil Ones, and put in people more to your own liking. Your enemies call them ‘puppets’, but we think you should just call them ‘friends of democracy’.

Though these members of the ‘Axis of Evil’ are infinitely less powerful than your nations, you can fairly easily persuade your populations that they are a real and present threat if you follow a few well tried techniques.

One technique you can adopt was well illustrated by a recent example. A country was known to be a nest of evil people led by an evil dictator. He must therefore, you knew, be plotting against you. He must be aping (a useful animal adjective) your ways and trying to stockpile weapons. These weapons must be really dangerous, carrying mass destruction with them. They must be far more dangerous than anything that had hitherto been discovered, despite extensive searches and a kind of electronic surveillance unprecedented in history. The evil intentions were enough to allay any doubts in your populations.

Obviously in this case you must have known, with your immensely sophisticated surveillance and intelligence and billions of pounds of advice, that there was no certainty that weapons existed or that they were to be deployed. But if you had told your populations that while there was no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, they must nevertheless attack the servants of Satan because they were an evil-intentioned people (and held much of the world’s precious oil reserves which Christ’s Kingdom needed), the response would have been luke warm. So you used all the approved techniques instead.

You exaggerated the threat, told partial truths (that weapons were battlefield only, for example, was omitted), exaggerated, made vague claims. In a court of law you have to tell ‘truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’. But this is not a court of law. By telling partial truths, by being as someone once described a former instance ‘economical with the truth’, and by mixing in untruths and exaggerations, it became impossible for the population to disentangle things. So people in fear and trust partly sanctioned the act of invasion, though even in this situation the majority were still unconvinced.

When all this (in effect) lying about the reasons for the war was revealed afterwards with the total absence of the grounds for fear, or even the links to the supposed ‘enemies’ who had attacked you earlier, you sensibly changed history. You claimed that the real reason was not the declared one at the time. It was really to rid the nation of a tyrant, to ‘liberate’ people so that they can be more like us. You should force them to accept your ‘values’, as one of you recently put it, and to abandon theirs. Since the powerful control history, might is right, this quelled criticism to a large extent.

The lesson from this is that after the event, even if it can be shown that the attack was mistaken and leads to disaster, do not apologize. Do not admit mistakes, or if you do, blame it on some technical mis-information you received. Much better to change history after the event to fit what happens. Go on the offensive. Say to people, ‘Do you want to bring XX’ back again? The threat of the return of Farmer Jones is the trump card used again and again in Orwell’s Animal Farm and is unanswerable. Your critics are put in an impossible position. They cannot say they liked the particular thug or tyrant, but if they lamely say that this was not why you went to war, it sounds a bit feeble.

Friday, 26 January 2007

3:3 Create fear, distrust and division

You yourselves should trust nobody, whether individuals or countries. Treat even your friends with suspicion, for human nature is deeply corrupted through the Fall of Man from grace. Assume the worst motives lie behind people’s actions. Strike before you are struck – the great advice of Machiavelli and Clausewitz and Stalin. Assume that your own populations are driven by base motives (fear, greed, ambition) and appeal to them. You will not often be disappointed.

Try to divert attention from your plans by filling people’s minds with distractions. Divide your critics and rule them. Sow fear and distrust in everyone so that they can not form into solid opposition to you.

Here you are very wise to have talked about ‘a war on terrorism’, for the weapon of the threat of terrorism is one of the very most successful in history. Whenever the terrorists strike, ratchet up your political powers so that your weapons are stronger. Fear is a powerful emotion and most people will surrender their liberties if they fear for their lives. And of course, tell them that it is a temporary loss, which will be restored, since both their dependence on you will be increased and they may be able to rationalize away their losses and face the temporary discomforts with hope that perhaps things will get better again ‘after the war’.

Even if there are few or no actual attacks, you can easily keep the population in anxiety and even terror. You can spread reports of ‘credible sources’ which have reported ‘heightened activity’ among your enemies. Of course you cannot reveal any of the details as this would strengthen your enemies – so people just have to trust in you, so you can make up what you like, especially as there are always people out there who want to feed you with bits and pieces to justify alerts.

Take some practical steps. From time to time suddenly swoop down on ‘suspects’, arresting them in dawn raids, make sure the press is there, try to make sure they look tired and dishevelled (and preferably of a different race) for the photos. Lock them away without explicit charges. Hunt around for evidence. Mostly you will find nothing, in which case you may, if you have not tidied up your legal system sufficiently, finally be forced to release them. But that will be months later and few will notice that nothing happened. People will just remember the vigorous measures you took against likely Evil persons. This will lead to confidence in your measures, gratitude to you, and relief at disasters potentially averted. If anything really does happen afterwards elsewhere, you can point to your active measures which, unfortunately, did not quite work.

Other methods are worth using. For instance, suddenly close off parts of cities, station tanks outside airports, divert planes at the last moment, suggest that vital information of an imminent attack has been discovered and you need to raise the threat level to a high point on whatever scale you have.

We cannot emphasize enough that the great enemy to your cause is complacency. After a period of nothing particular happening, your followers may start to accept that life is full of risk, that the enemy is not as fierce or ubiquitous as you allege. They may even wonder whether the huge sacrifices you ask, the heavy taxes, the surveillance, the loss of liberties, are really justified. At this point you should inspire them with fear and terror.

If things get really quiet and complacent, try to provoke the Evil Ones into attacking you. An assassination of a few of their supposed leaders, or some ‘collateral damage’ of women and children killed when you bomb or blast your way into one of their miserable refugee camps should do the trick. After all, it is better that a few innocent people on their side should suffer in the process than that the whole momentum of your crusade should falter and people begin to ask whether the war you are fighting is largely of your own making.

Tuesday, 23 January 2007

3:2 Should the Inquisition and Media Censorship be re-introduced?

All this is a good start, but much more is needed. When we faced the terrorism of the witches we had a much more tightly controlled situation. The Holy Office of the Inquisition had to licence every book or article that was published in the Christian World. There was a list of banned books. Anyone found with such a book in their house could be imprisoned and tortured. Writers and publishers were imprisoned and spies observed what was being said in drinking places and universities.

Some people think that this was just a medieval system. But when the philosopher the Baron de Montesquieu wrote his works in the middle of the eighteenth century, he had to publish them outside France to avoid the censor, and he recounts how he had nightmares at the thought that Inquisition spies might pounce on him. If it was a good enough system to last four hundred years, until a couple of centuries ago, it is good enough for today.

Indeed, the techniques never really ceased. These were the methods renewed and refined by Joseph Stalin in his iron control and elimination of millions of his citizens. In this current menace of your times, we would strongly recommend that you set up a ‘Czar’ (we believe this is the fashionable term in Britain, a ‘Chief’ in America perhaps), something similar to the Inquisitor General. They should have almost unbounded power in the areas of thought and media. They should co-ordinate the battle against contrary messages being aired. They should head a new bureau of thought police, the successor to the Holy Office of the Inquisition. They could monitor universities, schools, the media.

This was always done in conventional wars in the past in some way or another, and now that you are at war again, it is an urgent necessity. The papers are particularly to be scrutinized and their sources should not be protected, nor their editors have independence, for who knows what their links with the Evil One is.

After all, who do these critics and questioners think that they are? You are appointed by Heaven, not by your population. The people should trust and revere you. Their doubts, inspired by the Devil, are not only treasonable but sacrilegious. This is beginning to be realized. We heard a Russian minister rightly remark of some foreign diplomat who dared to question his government’s annihilation of the people’s of one of its satellites and the predictable backlash, that to discuss this policy was ‘blasphemous’. The State had spoken, God’s will was revealed, and you should bow down.

Saturday, 20 January 2007

3:1 The need for intolerance and hate

The battle against the Empire of Evil is ultimately about winning hearts and minds. It is a bitter fight against a deadly and cunning foe who will try to undermine and seduce your peoples. So you must give a great deal of careful thought as to how you are going to make them aware of what you know – the great danger they face and their need to trust in you.

You are entering a new phase of civilization. For most of the last five hundred years your governments and educators assumed it was part of their task to whip up hatred of your enemies. The Holy Roman Church thundered constantly against the threats of Satan and his Evil Empire and the terrors of sin and damnation . The art systems of the world portrayed the Devil and the terrors of Hell. The ideology taught all right-minded citizens that the world was divided into the Godly (us) and the heathens and idolaters (them). It was your mission to either convert or destroy them.

Unfortunately, after the Second World War, a rapid weakening of this black and white vision occurred. You were encouraged to tolerate, even to like, people of other races and creeds. Multi-culturalism, cultural relativism, artistic and intellectual exchanges, even inter-racial marriages and mixing of blood were encouraged. All this confused the simple message.

All was not lost, however. Your schools, sporting contests, national histories, the media, all portrayed the enemy (then the Soviet Union) as Evil and malicious. You should fight them in your war games, your sports competitions, your arms races and, if necessary, with real bullets and bombs. ‘Better dead than red’ was a popular motto, and a good one since red is the colour not only of Communism, but of the Devil. Yet gradually standards have slipped and you seemed to be on the brink of ‘going soft’ on the enemy. So you need to bring back a proper educational and training system for the emergency of your times.

You should instruct all your schools to use text-books which do not prevaricate about this issue. They should praise the glories of your civilization, the great role of your religion, the major victories which your forces have won, the inventions you have made. If information has to be given about other countries, those who are currently your enemies should be portrayed in a negative light.

In your sports you should teach children fervently to support your own teams. We heard of a major British politician who suggested that those who did not support the British cricket or football teams were unpatriotic and should, perhaps, be repatriated to their country of origins since their hearts were not wholly with us. We applaud this frank and logical approach, which might be applied more widely to support for local food, music, religion and other parts of culture. We are glad to hear that ‘oaths of allegiance’ and a ‘nationalist ceremony’ are being introduced for foreigners in some of your countries. Also that training courses in your local traditions are becoming compulsory. It is a pity you cannot change the colour of the skins of immigrants, but at least you can change their hearts and minds.

Friday, 19 January 2007

2:5 When should you move on down the list and who should be added?

How do you know when to move on from one act of ‘regime change’ to the next? Here there are two major criteria. One is the degree to which your actual mission is accomplished. If you attacked to kill certain people who had the effrontery to laugh at us or condemn us, to put in a government that will allow us to build a pipeline, to build bases and control oil wells, you can say that the mission is achieved when these things are effected. Mission accomplished and you can move on to the next.

Moving on will probably be sensible because your attack often causes intractable side-effects; a rise of internal violence, a rash of criminality, a boom in illegal activity such as opium production. It would be unfair to expect us to prepare for all these possibilities or to do all the mopping up. Yet your critics often go on about the chaos have brought, so it is good to give people something else to think about. So distract their attention by moving on to the next country on the list and people will soon forget your promises not to give up on them.

Fortunately attention spans are short, memories poor, the current war is enough to fill the media. So move the battle on and give a sense of success, movement forward, progress, a rolling, serious, concerted and planned brushing back of evil. No one likes stagnation. So God speed and keep the Crusades moving forward with further ‘successes’.


When you run out of people on the ‘A’ list, start to move on to a ‘B’ list, which are the reserves for attack, but which currently you deal with in a different way. You know that you are already starting to work on this. The second list are the countries you would like to undermine, weaken or perhaps crush because you know they will threaten your supremacy in the future, but you cannot do so as yet by conventional means. The most obvious on this list is China. So you need to continue to pour weapons into Taiwan, encourage Japan to break its post-war commitment to non-aggression, try to spin up negative stories about China, keep out as many Chinese as possible, build up the central Asian border states, send your spy planes over, try to use import tariffs to dampen down China’s exports.

All this will hopefully needle, undermine, threaten, destabilize China, as you did with the Soviet Union, but without actually attacking it militarily which would be futile and dangerous. Currently this approach applies mainly to China, but it might soon have to be what you do to India as well. And if Japan ever stopped being as subservient and accommodating to us, and asserted some independence, or switched loyalty from us to China, you would have to put it on the ‘B’ list.

Another point about the lists is that they help us to prioritise action. You work down a list. Just knowing they are on your list is useful in combating your enemies. It will cause fear, and perhaps defiance, which will further justify your attacks. So you pick them off one by one.

Then there is the question of who should decide on the list. Clearly this cannot be left to the United Nations. To start with, the ‘United’ suggests that that body would be averse to an approach that tries to destroy or re-model sovereign states on the basis of the self-interest of another sub-group of states. The most that organization ever comes up with is largely useless sanctions, even if they occasionally, as in South African apartheid, have some effect. Furthermore, some of the greatest ‘rogue states’ are members of the United Nations. Others have friends there. They would be unlikely to support their own destruction.

So the list making must be a matter for the leaders of the top ‘free’ countries – namely you. Of course if some other nations, for instance Pakistan or Vietnam, decided to make such a list and unilaterally attacked another neighbouring country that would be totally despicable and unacceptable. The exception, of course, is Israel, which has a special licence to invade its neighbours pre-emptively because of its beleaguered position and history.

Monday, 15 January 2007

2:5 How do you choose the enemies to attack?

There are those who challenge your actions by asking why you decide to bomb and invade one ‘rogue’ state before another. This is indeed a difficulty. Since your enemies form an ‘axis’ (with shades of Hitler and Mussolini) or as it has recently been termed an ‘arc’, and cross-infect each other, if you had the resources available it would be good to attack them all simultaneously. Yet this is impracticable because of the cost and the fact that it might simultaneously disrupt your oil supplies and over-stretch your forces. The best you can do, therefore, is to make a ‘wish’ list and start to work down it.

This list has to be compiled very carefully. In order to place a state onto it, a number of inter-secting criteria can be used. The country to attack must be strategically (Afghanistan) or economically (oil rich) important. The dictatorships and human rights abusers in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, are unlikely to be on the list since they do not fulfil either of these criteria.

The state should contain a reasonable sized military arsenal and be on the edge of possibly joining the nuclear club, such as North Korea, Iran or, as you thought, Iraq. Yet it should not already have joined the nuclear powers (as Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, India, China) for they would be too dangerous to attack. There is no point in risking your own civilization seriously. Likewise it should not have too large a conventional military force for if you invade it, you want to be able to crush it dramatically and quickly. So this rules out China, which is a menace but would probably defeat us in a conventional war. Discretion is the better part of valour.

The potential rogue state should have an ideology that is very different from ours. It should show active hostility to capitalism and individualism and seriously propose an alternative world view to your core values. The major two options here are communism and some forms of Islam. Yet this criterion on its own is not enough. Currently you would not attack Pakistan or Indonesia or China, even though they fulfil this test, because they do not fit in other ways.

Of course what really warns us of their rogue status is that their leaders not only refuse to accept our ‘democratic’ and civilized way of life, but actively challenge us and proclaims they do not need us. When Libya did this, you bombed it and applied punitive sanctions. It has come to heel. Cuba is a thorn in the flesh and you tried to invade it, but failed, as did your attempts to use the method of assassinating its President. You have temporarily learnt to forget about Cuba since it is of marginal strategic and economic significance, though no doubt when its leader dies or retires you will prudently interfere.

So you begin to obtain a composite model of who should be on your list of rogue states to attack and ‘regime change’. Middle-sized, oil rich (or useful for oil pipelines such as Afghanistan), ideologically intransigent, militarily quite powerful but not yet nuclear powers with dilapidated conventional forces which cannot stand up to your modern technology. This is, so to speak, the ‘A’ list, and these have already been given a preliminary formulation: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea.

* * *

A well-known technique to help you in compiling your list is known as ‘rogue state profiling’. Terrorist-harbouring states can be discerned by their looks and actions. They are, like witches, often poor and shabby and run-down, places like Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea or Palestine. That much of their misery is the consequence of your own sanctions and trade embargoes is not be to considered an objection. For why would you be punishing them already if they were not havens for terrorists?

They are inhabited by people who look like terrorists, that is to say, with swarthy, bearded, faces or inscrutable Mongolian eyes. They practice ‘fundamentalist’ religions (not Christian fundamentalism, or capitalist fundamentalism of the godly kind you find in the west of course), but fundamentalist Islam or unreconstructed communism. The people often look surly, angry, form into mobs to demonstrate against you, criticize you as hypocrites and imperialists and other gross exaggerations.

The leaders and their manipulated followers tend to be critical of the glories of capitalism, reluctant to accept the domination of your Empires, organized around a charismatic leader who acts in a repressive way to his people. Given his behaviour, it is odd that that their leaders often seem to be more loved by many than you are, despite the poverty that their arrogant rejection of your supremacy has brought. Such countries often have the effrontery to try to arm themselves with weapons. These weapons, to add to the seriousness of their crimes, were often given to them in an earlier period when they were your friends and they now refuse to destroy at your request. Or they come from your very own arms dealers by way of intermediaries, and they have the temerity to say that having paid good money to you for them, they should be allowed to keep them.

Saturday, 13 January 2007

2:4 What if people say military aggression has failed in the past?

There are weak-spirited critics of your war on terror who try to draw analogies with previous attempts to quell insurgency which have failed. They suggest that the history of the French debacle in Algeria, the Belgians in the Congo, the Americans in Vietnam, the Russians in Afghanistan, the Israelis in Lebanon (twice) , show one simple fact about these kinds of wars – that they never work. The reason, they say, is quite simple. By using military force against a country, it quickly turns people against the outsiders, whatever the original feelings of the majority may have been. They come to hate the people they might have been expected to love.

Furthermore, insurgency is hydra-headed. The more fire-power that is brought against it, the more it seems to flourish. It is like a rubber band; the more it is pushed against, the stronger its resistance. For each ‘terrorist’ killed, two more spring up. Each weapon that is deployed seems mysteriously to generate two in counter-opposition.

What is alleged by these critics is that these kinds of wars are in nature different to the traditional wars such as those of nineteenth century Europe or the American Civil War. It is not a matter of two groups fighting for a finite period, one winning on the field of battle, peace being declared at the end with a ‘victor’ and it all being over. These wars seem much more like feuds; each time you strike, the counter-strike gets larger. There is a terrible and bloody echo. The enemy is diffuse, impossible to pin down, fails to accept when he is beaten, gains in conviction every time you make a mistake and kill or torture the wrong people, resents the fact that, for example, tens of thousands of women and children are killed as ‘collateral’ damage.

So your critics liken us to someone entering a dangerous swamp, sucked in further and further, finally to be pulled out after countless atrocities, in a humiliating retreat as happened in all the cases mentioned above. They suggest that this is what you have already witnessed with the collapse of the well-meaning initiative in Afghanistan and the growing mayhem in Iraq. Are they right?

There is clearly something in what they say, but consider the implications. If you accepted this argument, you would have to leave the nests of vipers in the rogue states to breed without molestation. You would have to pursue the slow and cumbersome route to international peace through bodies like the United Nations, thereby surrendering some of your freedom of action and self-interests. You would just be one among a body of nations, seemingly having to listen to puny countries like Canada or Sweden with their dangerous liberal leanings.

It would be tantamount to re-thinking the whole world order and to accepting that military might is not the solution. It would mean that you should attempt to persuade, encourage and seduce your enemies rather than destroy them. This is clearly unacceptable.

Why can’t your enemies accept defeat graciously like the Japanese did after you had dropped two atom bombs on them and shown them who was military boss, or the Germans when you had defeated their armies and destroyed their cities in infernos? It is all very disappointing, but should not lead us to despair. If you can throw enough weapons, enough troops, enough terror at them, surely they will give up?

The final consolation is that if you fail again, as you did in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and elsewhere, the memory of this defeat and humiliation will not last for long. After previous failures, people said you would never forget your mistakes. But a generation on and the memories are dying. If your current policies do not succeed, in a generation or two people will have forgotten. Indeed, it may be sooner than that, for the effective failure of your attempt to bring a new and more decent order to Afghanistan is already largely forgotten, only a year or two into the process.

Furthermore, it is not winning or losing that matters, it is the game itself. While you’re at war with terror, it has such exquisite side-effects. It increases your power and ability to pursue whatever goals you like, so that the final outcome does not really matter. Europe grew rich during the Crusades, even if it did not gain the Holy Land for good. It grew rich on the pillage of China, even if China slipped from its grasp. It grew rich from its control of India, even if the Indians gained independence in the end. The same was true in Africa and the Middle East. Even the Vietnam years were not bad ones in America.

It is perhaps a pity that many should have to be shrivelled up in the process, but that is the world you live in. The ‘survival of the fittest’, nature ‘red in tooth and claw’, these are good analogies. Make sure you are the fittest and that your teeth and claws are really sharp and you will survive. ‘Attack first, think later’, is not a bad motto.

Thursday, 11 January 2007

2:3 Is a war the best way to attain your ends?

A great poet once wrote:

Take up the white man’s burden,
The savage wars of peace,
Fill up the mouth of famine,
And bid the sickness cease.

There is much food for thought here. You are indeed fighting ‘the savage wars of peace’, so savage that peace is an almost unimaginable outcome, and the savagery is beyond belief. And it is indeed the ‘white man’s burden’, the burden of white, Anglo-Saxon, protestants and all the gallant people’s of the West, whatever their colour. You must not flinch from accepting that burden, from taking on the mantle of the white Empire of Light, the successor to the great Empires of the past. You must once more go forth as the soldiers and missionaries did in the past, the warriors of the civilizing process.

Yet we have to admit that we are less persuaded by the next two lines. They suggest a way of fighting the wars and shouldering the burden to which we have always paid lip service, but been less interested in as an effective way of dealing with your problem.

It is true that the world is full of hunger and poverty and even of famine. Several million died of famine in one unreformed communist power alone in the 1990s. But in that case, you sensibly let them starve rather than give in to any weak idea that to feed or raise the sanctions on them might have shown your generosity and earnest friendship and hence defused tensions.

It is true that millions die unnecessary deaths from tuberculosis, malaria, dysentery and now AIDS. It is obvious that unspeakable suffering from preventable diseases, from blindness and many other conditions could be hugely reduced if you wished to spend even a small part of your wealth on research and medicines, rather than on weapons of war. Yet, you do not take this course, which could damage the west’s pharmaceutical industries and divert precious funds, and might even make the disease racked population a threat to your supremacy.

Jesus rightly suggested that the poor would always be with us. He didn’t actually say it would be a good thing if they were, but some might see a tone of approval here, and your religious orders have always glorified poverty (or at least for others). If you’re to be rich and powerful in this resource-scarce world it is perhaps a necessary evil that the majority of the world should remain poor. It certainly inhibits them from buying the tanks and aeroplanes and other weapons which would seriously threaten us.

So the current strategy, which is to spend billions (500 billion dollars a year on ‘defence’ in the U.S. currently) on military approaches, spy satellites, intelligence, imprisoning and other methods, and to use almost all your energy, time and thought on this, seems right. It is right even if the famines, diseases, terrible housing, gruelling work and general misery of half the world’s population cannot be seriously addressed. Remember that you’re not social workers or philanthropists. You are fighting a war against the Evil One. You may occasionally pledge to commit ourselves to alleviating the misery in parts of the world. This is a useful gesture. But, of course, you don’t have the time or resources to follow through seriously on this.

There are naïve people who say that you should try to understand the causes of the radical attacks on us. They innocently suggest that if you tried to deal with ignorance, poverty, misery, hopelessness, people might hate us less. They seem to think that you have the time to work at the deep roots of injustice and inequality. But you do not have the times, nor the plans. You need sensational, fast, short-cuts.

The wishy-washy idealists seem to think that you could correct the inequality of the world without losing something, which is clearly unrealistic. If you were to give the other half of the world which lives on a pittance even a part of your wealth to bring them up to half the average consumption of the west, you would have to make drastic changes to your way of life.

You would have to economize, eat less meat, drive smaller cars, turn down the air-conditioning, have less weapons. So you would have to give up civilization as you know it. You would have to treat these other people as equals, as humans of the same level as us, instead of as a rather miserable inferior species. Even if you seriously wanted to do this ourselves, how could you possibly sell the idea to your populations?

Furthermore, there is little glory or even political capital to be derived from trying to solve the problems of world poverty and disease. They are worth ideals no doubt, but who wants to be like the Scandinavian countries with their large overseas budgets and zero political power, boring philanthropists with unmemorable rulers? No, what you must do is to chose the path of war, taking the battle to your enemies.

For you must remember that all this talk of the ‘roots’ of attacks on us being the miseries and injustices of the world is a smokescreen. What these people hate is not that they are poor, but that you’re rich. They want to drag us all down to their own level. They hate what they call your materialism and overblown consumerism, what they call your ‘Coke and McDonald’s’ culture. They hate your open society (though perhaps they would hate it less if they knew how much you secretly censor and put pressure on dissident thought).

These enemies hate your freedom, for example the freedom of your women to compete in a man’s world on roughly equal terms. They hate your youth-culture, the huge consumption of alcohol, the rapidly increasing use of drugs, the pornography and open sex. They hate your endless pursuit of bodily pleasures, your obsession with money, your philistinism as they see it, your gambling, your obesity and your waste. Their hates are deep and irrational, just as were those of the poor mumbling witches with their irritating requests and malevolent, critical, eyes.

No amount of helping them to get decent schools, jobs, hospitals, food and clean water would affect this hatred. So it is not worth trying this approach. Concentrate on the bombs and bullets, on walls and high technology defences, and the kingdom of heaven will be with you.

The final misapprehension is that you want to win this war against terrorism. Christ’s battle with Satan never ends. If it were not this war, it would be another. When the Evil Empire of Communism posed a real threat, you knew where you were. For a few confusing years after its collapse you seemed to have won. One famous thinker with the big American intelligence agency the RAND corporation even wrote a book on ‘The End of History’. The war was over. Capitalism had won. He did not seem to realize what this would do to western economies whose main export and wealth now came from fighting. So, economic (and social) disaster loomed.

Although some have disputed its reality, the ‘Report from Iron Mountain’, which is on the internet, sets out cogently, if hypothetically, why the end of war would be an unacceptable disaster for America. If you do not know this forthright and realistic account of how America cannot afford peace, you should look at it.

Fortunately Satan chose that moment to launch his next attack. Now you have found an even better foe who can never be beaten. The more you throw ourselves against Him, the more, hydra-headed, He grows. Redouble the efforts, man the defences. Fight the good fight with all your might. There is no time for remorse, there is no alternative to the Christian battle against the Empire of Evil.

Tuesday, 9 January 2007

2:2 How to conceal your motives effectively.

A second difficulty is to conceal another part of your motivation. It is clear to all of you that you are chosen by God to defend your world. No other leader could do it so well. You have tasted power and know its sweetness. People treat you with real respect and seldom argue with you. Even if some of you in your past were often people of mediocre abilities, who would not be very successful in any other sphere of life, you have found your true vocation. Usually by chance, you have become the focus of much wider forces and powers.

Huge sums of money and expertise are channelled into your hands. You are regarded with awe and have rightly come to regard yourselves seriously. You know the answers. Your enemies are fools, or worse. It is your destiny to lead. Day by day and adulation by adulation, this conviction grows. Your courtiers make sure that you are sheltered from the critics and the realities. They flatter and press you on in your grand crusade.

After a time you begin to realize that the terrorists are not just your countries enemies, but your personal enemies. If they succeed, you will lose your power. Why should they hate you so?

Fortunately, your enemies provide an opportunity rather than a threat. In the well-worn tradition of political behaviour, you should be masculine, aggressive, confident, even a bit swaggering in your walk and talk. You should not show any signs of weakness, any ‘on the one hand or the other’, any reasonableness towards the infidels. This image of machismo man is what you should pursue.

Model yourself on other heroes, in reality and fiction. Remember Richard the Lion Heart, ‘Braveheart’, Batman (for you each have your ‘Robin’), Superman, Rambo and others. Walk tall, posture, grin, fill your speeches with threatening words and military or hunting metaphors and your population will love it. They will soon forget that much of this is designed for your own preservation and furtherance of your power and fame. They will hopefully not notice too much that if you really cared about their good, you would often have to apologise for your mistakes. If possible, forget the very concept of apology.

This may sound difficult, but we have seen some of you are masters of the art. For example, we heard the leader of the world’s greatest power, after a particularly disastrous intervention and many palpably terrible domestic errors, asked if there was anything he regretted doing, any mistakes he had made. After being dumb-struck at the very idea for a couple of minutes, he sensibly replied, no, he couldn’t think of anything at all he should apologise for – except perhaps for the fact that he had nothing to apologise for. Great stuff.


So your problem is that your real motives are mixed and only vaguely overlap with your publicly stated motives. Your speeches are sensibly filled out with empty generalities which come in handy in every situation. You talk of ‘freedom’ (without defining for whom, how, why and what). You speak of ‘democracy’, without ever bothering to specify what that means. You proclaim ‘peace’ (after bloody war), ‘our civilization’ (meaning your way of life). Of course they are all wonderful, like mother love and apple pie. But intrinsically, unfortunately, they are so vague that they are not conspicuously more satisfactory than the vague objectives of your enemies.

For example, the ‘Evil Empire’ of Communism proclaimed that it would spread, equality, fraternity and liberty through the total involvement of the people in the running of the system. You rightly spurned those empty and hypocritical claims. Yours are true, and worthy, of course, theirs false. But it is difficult to prove.

Though at times you seek to persuade yourself that these large values are what you are fighting for, you are caught with the difficulty that even these glorious aims have to be sacrificed if they conflict with a higher cause. If a country elects a President who is part of the Axis of Evil, you need to replace him with a dictator, even if democracy’s glorious cause is cut short. If freedom from hunger, disease, poverty and fear is made more difficult by your sanctions and bombs, then these freedoms must be temporarily suspended in pursuit of the larger freedom of opening up their markets to your goods.

After all, the half a million children and others who are reported to have been killed by your blockade of Iraq’s food and medicine was perfectly reasonable. ‘They’ had a choice. ‘They’ could have listened to you and got rid of their leader, and lifted the sanctions. As for ‘peace’, that may have to be postponed indefinitely. Peace is a luxury which you can only glimpse at the rainbow’s end.

So though you have the sound conviction of your high and patriotic motives, you know that the war is about much more than what you can publicly speak. It is about oil, it is about trade, it is about influencing people to be positive about your imperial ambitions. And above all it is about your rule. You must not apologise because, unlike all other fallible mortals, you are above error. What you do is automatically right. You could be described as ‘moral supermen’. You sincerely believe in yourselves as trustworthy, good, guys. You have inherited the mantle of the our blessed Father the Pope who has always been infallible.

This self-belief is essential. Where would Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Mao have got without self-belief? Like them, you are full of sincerity. You rightly believe that God is on your side, calling and guiding you. You have a mission on earth. You are the called, the Elect. You join the blessed tradition. And if some filthy infidels and non-persons stands in your way, you should trample them down. You are St. George. Politics is a large game of ‘Dungeons and Dragons’. You have your dungeons, they are the Dragons. Go forth to conquest.

Sunday, 7 January 2007

2:1 What are your real motives?

One thing people often say is that while you pretend to be fighting to protect your citizens from their enemies, or pretend to be spreading freedom and democracy, lofty enough motives, in fact you are largely concerned with political and economic aggrandisement. They say you are mainly trying to extend your Empire and obtain precious resources such as oil and minerals in order to maintain your high standard of living.

This is not easy to refute for several reasons. Firstly, it often quickly becomes apparent that your actions only stir up fresh dangers and new terrorist anger. They do not appear to make the world safer, but attract terrorism. So it is a little difficult at first sight to say that your actions are to protect us from your enemies, or, if they are, they are a bad way of doing it. Secondly, it usually appears that the original fear which you used to justify your attacks were grossly exaggerated, if not entirely invented. You have counter-attacked against the wrong enemy, or without cause.

Thirdly, the idea of bringing peace, civilization and democracy seems a little hollow as events unfold. As your peoples watch the destroyed buildings, gutted schools, razed fields, frightened and wounded and hungry people in the places you go out to ‘save’, they may wonder for a moment whether civilization and democracy can be or is being installed in the way you promised.

They may even wonder whether you have got it the wrong way round. They may be seduced into thinking that just giving people the right to vote without any of the underpinnings of democracy cannot work. They may suggest that you should help other countries, even if you may not like their politics, to create peace, reasonable taxes and a decent judicial system first, and then democracy may well emerge, as it did in your civilizations. Democracy was not imposed on England or America, it grew organically, they will say.

The difficulty with refuting these objections also arises from another problem. This is that while in logic these criticisms are right, they miss the wider context and are based on naïve and liberal beliefs which cannot be sustained in your world.

Of course you want and need the oil. How can you fight your crusade against Terror if you do not have the fuel for your bombers and tanks? And how can you live a civilized life without consuming a large part of the world’s oil supply? How can a decent American or British way of life be led without consuming fifty times as much energy per capita in a lifetime than an average Indian or African? So you need the oil for civilization, for defending the democratic way and, if we may say so, for promoting Christ’s Kingdom.

It is a good axiom that ‘he who wills the ends must will the means’. The ends are the glory of God and your way of life. You must will the means, which are controlling the oil wells, driving out settlers on your borders, destroying those who try to separate themselves off from us, especially if they might have access to precious resources. Unfortunately, such is the innocence and idealism of your population, that if you said you were mainly fighting for oil, that would be regarded negatively by some. So do not say ‘you wanted the oil’, but do make sure you get it.

Friday, 5 January 2007

1:5 Do you know what real evil is like?

So it seems from your words and your actions that you take the threats seriously, but do you yet know how very serious they are? You talk of ‘Evil’ frequently, and it is clear that you see that what faces you is horrible, a vast and threatening attack on Our World. But at times we feel that with your rather materialistic backgrounds and lack of training in theology, you do not yet fully understand what a cosmic battle we are engaged in.

Our enemies are not just misguided political extremists. They are bestial, depraved and perverted humans. Indeed we should not think of them as humans. We shall give further advice on how to get your populations to think of them as sub-human, but in the meantime we note that you have started to make some progress in this direction (we have seen the photographs).

Your techniques of keeping those captured in tiny cages, exposed to the wind and rain and without privacy is a good start. The setting of dogs upon them as if they were wild beasts who were being hunted down is another good technique. By urinating on them as if they were toilets you show their sub-human level. By putting leads on them as if they were animals and pulling them around, you rightly indicate to everyone that they are just like a dog or cat. By making them commit grossly indecent acts with each other in front of you and with video cameras at the ready, you liken them to performing apes. These methods should, ideally, be extended to a much wider range of those captured. Beasts deserve bestial treatment.

Yet your materialism and watered down religion may make it difficult for you to realize that they are not just non-persons in the sense of being animals, but also that spiritually they are not humans. We do not mean that the majority of them are infidels – Chechens, Palestinians, Afghanis, Iraquis, Iranians, North Koreans – and so on. That is bad enough, but some of you are also not of the true Catholic faith, and your ancestors came from godless lands. What we mean here is that their inner essence, their ‘souls’, have been eaten away. They are ‘devils’, with devilish powers to threaten us. Their aim is not the political independence or fair treatment which they proclaim, but rather to destroy our very souls, to lead us in the pit of damnation, to take us from Christ.

Let us remind you of Evil. It is sleepless, pitiless, anti-matter. It prowls and schemes and hates. It uses secrecy, the night, the merciless logic of insanity. We cannot understand its motives, or listen to its words. All we can do is, in your language (and we shall return to refining that language later), to ‘eradicate’ it (like weeds), hunt it down, trap, kill and wipe it off the earth.

We must always remember that by joining with Evil, by making the fatal compact with the Devil, our enemies have put themselves outside the moral fence. They have had their humanity sucked out of them. They may seem like humans on the surface, but are really monsters, zombies, the living dead, vampires. Think of the Lord of Mordor, of Voldemort in Harry Potter, the Joker in Batman, of all your worst nightmares since childhood. And be in dread.

So, because they are non-human and out to steal our souls as well as our civilization, we must not flinch in our task. Christ’s empire must flourish, civilization must not sink. Exterminate all Evil. That is your task. Never forget it.

Wednesday, 3 January 2007

1:4 The nature of the war on evil

Let us remind you of the nature of the war you have proclaimed and the fact that you are engaged in a great and glorious cause. This is especially important since you will know that the assorted enemies you have taken on try to undermine your work by issuing specific and apparently plausible demands, they attempt to make you fight on many fronts and without any coherence. This is one problem for you.

For example, the Chechens are very different from the majority population of Russia and their traditions and history lead most of them to wish to have a separate state. Other fragments of the old Soviet Union like them escaped to freedom, but through chance they did not. Their demand to be separate, they say, would not threaten Russia and indeed from time to time they have been granted near autonomy. Yet their arguments are, obviously, just a ploy.

You can deflect all criticisms of your severe treatment of these peoples by pointing out that in reality they are part of an Islamic fundamentalist conspiracy with deep links to the evil organization which keeps changing its name, but is currently called al-Qaeda. So you can easily show that they are not, and should not be, treated as nationalists, but terrorists. We should not listen to their surface requests. They are clearly part of the Axis of Evil and whatever general methods are permissible against terrorists are to be used to destroy these vermin.

Or again, some might listen to the arguments of the Palestinians for a separate State based on earlier agreements. They might feel that in the face of overwhelming military power and endless encroachments, the building of walls that cut off their farm lands, the destruction of their olives and crops, they have no way to react but to use the methods of those they consider to be the aggressors, but, as one definition of a terrorist puts it, they are fighters without air-power. Subject to assassinations, the bullet and the bomb, they act in the same way.

Yet obviously we should not listen to their whining pleas for fair-handed treatment or their harping on about U.N. resolutions requiring Israel to pull back to an agreed border and remove the settlements. We know that the Palestinian militants are really part of the same grand conspiracy, and indeed Palestine is one of the chief swamps where these vermin breed.

Even one of the great servants of Satan, Bin Laden himself, put forward requests which have deceived some. Foolish people suggest that if we had tried to deal with some of the grievances he put forward, this war might have been avoided. He says that all he wants is fair treatment for Palestine and the removal of the American troops from the most sacred holy land of Saudi Arabia (that was all I thought? Mecca lies in SA). But obviously this is just a cover, not to be listened to for a moment. We know that really he and his followers hate and envy us. They want to destroy all that we stand for. They hate consumerism, capitalism, what they call the decadence of our lives. They are Evil and we should have no truck with evil. We should shut our ears to its seductive tones and resolutely turn away from self-examination or any listening to their woes.

Of course you know all this, and you know that the situation is now particularly grave because the weapons available to those who hate us are so lethal. In our time, the weapons were equally serious – plagues, storms, locusts – but the means by which they were brought into operation were magical and mysterious. Now both the weapons and the ways to use them are easy to find.

So you are well aware of the gravity of the situation, especially after the obscenity of the bomb attack of 9/ll on the ‘Twin Towers’. That shock is particularly undermining since, while we know that it is part of the international conspiracy of Evil which links all our enemies, it has been impossible to find any connection to another major fiend, Saddam Hussein. Of course you had to cover-up this absence of any link, and to constantly imply, hint, suggest a link so that, in the end, without ever seeing any proof, people became convinced that Saddam had planned the attack. This is just the kind of deceit which is unfortunately both necessary and justified in our war, as we shall explain. We had to use deceits to trick the witches and Satan in our time, and you must do the same.

Monday, 1 January 2007

1:3 How to deal with criticisms of your war

Another reason we write is that it seems to us that you need to be armed more explicitly against the arguments of doubters and critics. Remember that you are facing the Evil One himself, who is behind the terrorist plots on earth. He is ever seeking to pollute and corrupt human minds and especially those misguided minds of certain Professors, Lawyers and other so-called human rights and civil liberties groups who will, among other things, try to obtain copies of this secret Manual if they hear of its existence.

Satan will feed these critics with plausible criticisms of your Godly work and these, if unrefuted, may stir up resistance in the Gadarene swine whom you lead. We ourselves encountered this in our work in Germany where many doubters objected – until the Holy Innocent VIII armed us with his papal bull and condemned them as heretics. Things are not as easy for you, as yet, so you need to have considered all the possible objections to your work and have rebuttals ready. We provided a few for the authorities in our Hammer of Evil, and we will do this for you in two special chapters of factual ‘question and answer’ (FQA) advice so that you are well prepared to counter the insidious claims of your critics.

We should also warn you that Satan is not above tempting you, yourselves. There will be moments when you doubt. When you see young children screaming in pain in the hospitals of an infidel country you have bombed to rid our world of Evil, or hear that some of your soldiers have tortured prisoners in ways that exceed your orders, or watch beautiful objects, buildings and priceless writings smashed and burnt, you may falter. When you hesitate and wonder about the cost, we can encourage and console you.

We ourselves in the witchcraft prosecutions heard the screams of fair young maidens and children on the wrack or as they were being burnt alive protesting their innocence. We also had our momentary doubts. Yet we fortified ourselves in Christ. We shall advise you how to keep resolute, how to make a realistic estimate of the relations between the glorious Ends and the often painful means. And we shall remind you that as Christ was reviled and scorned in his time, yet suffered in his cause, your rewards will not only be on this earth (as we believe will also be the case), but ultimately in fame in the future and in a blessed Eternity in Heaven.


We feel spurred on to write because no such Manual has come to our attention. We also write because while we can praise your efforts so far, we feel that you have only just commenced your mighty task. There is evidence enough that while the major part of the twentieth century was pre-occupied by wars between you all and the vicious disciples of the Jewish prophet Karl Marx, much of the twenty-first century and beyond will be concerned with the new war on terrorism.

You do not really seem fully aware of what still remains to be organized in order to set up a full-scale war against the Axis of Evil. You seem both to underestimate your deadly Foe, and perhaps still retain a lingering desire to be seen to be liberal, democratic, rulers in the western tradition.

Of course you should aim for this appearance. Your populations are not overnight going to switch from their old-fashioned adherence to the godless and liberal political systems which they were brought up in. But we would like to point out the implications of your grand undertaking and where it must lead you to if you are to win. So we will show you how to gain the necessary powers, political, legal and military, while keeping up a semblance of democratic and open civilization for your still too nostalgic a people, strangely wedded to an outmoded fashion from an earlier age. By examining the foremost proponents of those old-fashioned views, the doubtful adherents to liberty, as well as the more realistic and useful manuals on politics and war by great thinkers, we can synthesize a useful set of tools for your great task.