Order Out Of Chaos
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D. Monday, March 27, 2006
"The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make us wonder at the possibility that there may be something we are missing." --Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, 1957President George W, Bush has often proclaimed how he has brought "democracy" to Iraq. However, the "democracy" he has brought there will result in Shariah (Islamic) law being imposed. And in Afghanistan, where President Bush also brought "democracy," Associated Press reporter Daniel Cooney wrote "Afghan Man Faces Death for Christian Conversion," (THE WASHINGTON TIMES, March 20, 2006), which begins: "An Afghan man is being prosecuted (under Shariah law) in a Kabul court and could be sentenced to death on a charge of converting from Islam to Christianity, a judge said yesterday."
From the beginning, Iraqi Shiites, who advocate Shariah law, have cooperated with the American process of bringing "democracy" to that country because they believe that as the majority in Iraq, they will rule. But therein also lies the problem, because there is no incentive for them to compromise with Sunnis and others to form a unity government. If the U.S. threatens to withdraw its forces if the Shiites don't compromise, this might have little impact because the Shiites believe they would prevail in any possibly resulting civil war.
How did the U.S. get itself into such a dilemma? The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) under the leadership of William Kristol long argued for Saddam's removal from power. And with members of PNAC holding key positions in the Bush administration, it was not difficult to get President Bush to invade Iraq. However, from the beginning, Kristol expressed his fear that the U.S. would try to win "on the cheap" with too few soldiers, resulting in the chaos which has existed since the invasion until today.
In an effort to understand why this happened, one should ask "Cui bono?" ("Who benefits?") from continued chaos in Iraq. The answer is the power elite. While President Bush was maneuvered into invading Iraq, the power elite's dialectical process persuaded the President (unrealistically) that he could achieve victory with only about 150,000 troops when his father deployed almost 600,000 against Saddam in 1991 just to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait. There is no way 150,000 soldiers could occupy, secure, police, and nation-build a country the size of Iraq. Thus, continued chaos was assured.
Various explanations have been offered for the chaos. NEW YORK TIMES chief mililtary correspondent Michael Gordon's new book, COBRA II, refers to the Bush administration's failure to anticipate the level of insurgency. However, in my book, COVER-UP, published BEFORE the war began, I quoted exiled Iraqi Lt.-General Tawfik al-Yassiri specifically referring to Saddam's planned guerrilla warfare. Moreover, in the new book, MY YEAR IN IRAQ, by Coalition Provisional Authority administrator L. Paul Bremer III, he acknowledges learning of Saddam's strategy early in the occupation. Yet, President Bush still refused to increase troop levels. Not only did he not increase American troop levels, but he prevented the rapid training of Iraqi forces, which he claims he wants ! Major-General Paul Eaton was given the task of rebuilding the Iraqi army.
However, in Thom Shanker's article, "General Says Training of Iraqi Troops Suffered from Poor Planning and Staffing" (THE NEW YORK TIMES, February 11, 2006), one reads: "'We set out to man, train and equip an army for a country of 25 million---with 6 men,' General Eaton said. He worked into the autumn with 'a revolving door of individual loaned talent that would spend between two weeks and two months,' he said, and never received even half the 250 professional staff members he had been promised."
So what do we do now? On NBC's "Meet the Press" (March 19, 2006), Congressman John Murtha proposed that our forces in Iraq be redeployed (to defensible areas), so that Iraqi soldiers would take over most military operations.
If American troops were redeployed in this manner, though, what would likely happen? First, the insurgents (including many non-Iraqis) would strike more vigorously against the Shiites, trying to foment a larger sectarian civil war. The Shiites would then strike back against the insurgents, based largely in Sunni areas. The Sunnis would react to this because they would foresee oppression by the Shiite majority who were themselves oppressed for decades by Saddam (a Sunni). This would then be a classic, intensified, sectarian civil war which Iraqi Shiites would win, perhaps with assistance from Shiite allies in Iran.
This would not be what the power elite wants, though, which is continued relatively low-level chaos that wears people down and keeps oil prices high. In Greg Palast's March 20, 2006 article in THE GUARDIAN (London) about how "Bush didn't bungle Iraq," he refers to the State Department's secret 323-page plan for Iraq's oil in which was a "directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will 'enhance its relationship with OPEC'." Palast went on to say that "every time the 'insurgents' blow up a pipeline in Basra,...the price of oil leaps," and Big Oil loves it. In 2005, the top 5 oil companies made $113 billion in profit compared to only $34 billion in 2002 before the Iraq war began.
The chaos in Iraq, the Middle East and elsewhere, wears down Americans, Shiites, Sunnis, Israelis, Palestinian Arabs, etc., until all are willing to accept external control by global political, economic, etc., managers. These managers will bring a world government order out of chaos, which by that time all parties will accept because they will be too worn out to resist.
Therefore, President George W. Bush will "stay the course" of chaos, not because he is running things, but because he will be "advised" that it would be "cowardly" not to continue his current policy. President Bush is largely a product of the advice and information he is given and, just as important, NOT given. In other words, he is a useful pawn of the power elite, just as was President Clinton. It's like Prof. Carroll Quigley said in TRAGEDY AND HOPE (1966)----"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy." Remember that Prof. Quigley chose the word, "Hope," in his book's title as referring to the power elite bringing to fruition Cecil Rhodes' plan "to take the government of the whole world."
At this point you may say nations of the world, such as the U.S., China, etc., would never submit to the power elite. But what if there were another major terrorist attack? Or what if nations' computer systems "just happened" to fail? What if there were a flu pandemic and large segments of the population were forcibly quarantined? Or what if nations' crops "just happened" to fail because of weather modification? And what if nations "just happened" to have earthquakes? Remember Secretary of Defense William Cohen at an April 28, 1997, Conference on Terrorism said there are those who "are engaging in even an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes (and) volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."
There is a psychology at work here. Do you remember in George Orwell's 1984 that Big Brother's agent, O'Brien, said that you will come to love Big Brother? It's like when the North Koreans tortured prisoners and then offered them some small kindness, the prisoners actually began to express their appreciation to the very people who had been responsible for causing their pain in the first place ! They came to love Big Brother, and that's the power elite's goal for each of us.
Alexis De Tocqueville in DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA (1840) warned of what rule by the power elite would mean----"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent....It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry....After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform....The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided....It does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupifies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd....It is vain to summon a people who have been rendered so dependent on the central power to choose from time to time the representatives of that power; this rare and brief exercise of their free choice...will not prevent them from gradually losing the faculties of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves, and thus gradually falling below the level of humanity."
Later, Prof. Quigley in TRAGEDY AND HOPE would say that the ordinary individual's "freedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number, through his educational training, his required military and other public service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his final retirement and death benefits."
Today, many Americans are just watching garbage on their TVs as our profits go overseas----Amoco's profits go to England, Purina's and Gerber's profits go to Switzerland, TransAmerica's profits go to The Netherlands, etc., as American companies are being sold to foreign enterprises. Sound recording industries are 97% foreign-owned, metal ore mining 65%, motion picture and video industries 64%, book publishers 63%, plastic products 51%, etc. About 80% of our port terminals are managed by foreign companies, and parts for our missiles are now made in China, with whom we may be at war some day. To most people, this would make no sense. But to the power elite, it makes perfect sense.
Remember that on March 10, 1962, Council on Foreign Relations member Lincoln Bloomfield presented Study Memorandum No.7, "A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations" (under contract SCC 28270 with the State Department, headed by Rhodes Scholar Dean Rusk), in which he wrote: "A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which 'world government' would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force....(But) if the Communist dynamic was greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government."
Of course, to get people to accept the world government the power elite has planned, patriotism must be diminished, and unsuccessful wars are very useful toward that end. For example, after the Vietnam War had dragged on for years, THE NEW YORK TIMES on May 22, 1974, published pollster Daniel Yankelovich's findings that in 1973, only 19% of college-educated youth and only 35% of noncollege-educated youth between 16 and 25 years of age thought that patriotism was an important value.
The power elite's plan has existed for many, many years. In fact, note the reference to "military defeat" (unsuccessful war) in Philip Freneau's article, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One," in the July 1792 edition of AMERICAN MUSEUM. He warned that the power elite would emphasize the limitations of the American Republic's Constitution, with "precedents and phrases" (e.g., due process) "shuffled in." He next indicated that civil turbulence in the republic would be contrasted with the stability existing under the hereditary elite. The "grand nostrum" of Freneau's outline of the power elite's possible plan was the creation of debt "made as big as possible, as perpetual as possible, in as few hands as possible," and as complicated as possible. He then said, "A great debt will require great taxes....Money will be put under the direction of government, and government under the direction of money" (e.g., banking elite).
The next step would be to create "artificial divisions within society" (e.g., "divide and conquer" strategy) which would "smother the true and natural division between the few (elite) and the general mass of people, attached to their republican government and republican interests." Freneau then indicated that the elite would give a popular name, such as "the general welfare," to the usurped power so that those opposing the elite could be negatively labeled as "opposing the general welfare" of the people. He described how a military defeat (e.g., the Vietnam War) would be turned into political victory for the power elite. And lastly, he noted that those warning about the elite's attempt to seize power would themselves be labeled as "enemies to the established government." Freneau declared that this charge would "be reiterated and reverberated till at last such confusion and uncertainty be produced that the people, being not able to find out where the truth lies, withdraw their attention from the contest." Doesn't this warning by Freneau sound like what the power elite is doing today?
OUT OF CHAOS, ORDER
Lynn M. Stuter April 19, 2003
During the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the mantra was pushed, heavily, that Americans had a front row seat to the war, minute by minute, from the comfort of their living rooms. This was a picture painted over and over again by government pundits on talk show after talk show.
While the pictures coming out of Iraq were quite real, were the words accompanying them the reality, or were they what the media wanted the public to hear?
Case in point. Repeatedly, during the course of what people were allowed to assume were "live" broadcasts coming out of Iraq, the same pictures kept showing up on the television screen while the voice feed carried different captions. This was especially true concerning the explosions to be seen and heard in the early days of the conflict in Baghdad. Another of particular note was the building blown up by American artillery and mortar rounds that appeared to be like a cat with nine lives ... that building just kept reappearing to be blown up again and again in the same manner but with a different voice feed.
Quite obviously, the film footage ran, the figures on the screen moved, but the film feed wasn't live even though the voice-over might have been.
All the while this was going on, the question was raised numerous times of whether the film footage being shown on Al-Jazeera (also spelled al-Jazeera and Al Jazeera) television of Saddam Hussein was shot that day or was old footage. Interestingly, that same question was never raised in the context of film shown "live at five" on American television. It has been raised since by individuals inured to the media spin on the war.
In the information age, where information travels at high speed world-wide, the ability of the media to maintain control of what the public sees and hears no longer exists -- something the government spin doctors seem to have forgotten in their coverage of the Iraq war.
It becomes apparent, in all this, that the war shown in livingrooms in America was not necessarily the war as it happened, but rather what the media and the government talking heads wanted the public to see. Just as the film of Saddam Hussein was probably not credible, neither was all of what the Americans saw.
If this is true with the "war" in Iraq, is it safe to assume the same is also true with most everything else shown on television? How many times have people seen film footage on television that was supposedly related to the voice feed but, in reality, wasn't? Which raises the question of how true, and how accurate is anything coming from any of the mainstream national "news" services? Or has mainstream media become one big propaganda machine for the government?
This raises many questions. Is the SARS epidemic for real or is it just government hype to scare people, to create one more crisis, picking up where the situation in Iraq left off in the lives of the American people? What about the weapons of mass destruction that have yet to surface in Iraq? For real or just another crisis? Was the attack on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon preventable but allowed to happen to create yet another crisis?
Saul Alinsky, in his book, Rules for Radicals, stated:
"Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future".
To rephrase this quote -- people must become so tired of the chaos, the constant state of crisis creating stress and disruption in their lives, that they will do anything to attain peace and quiet. At this point they will accept tyranny to achieve order out of chaos. In this vein, the crises created must be of the magnitude to create mass chaos:
- The minute by minute coverage of the planes flying into the World Trade Towers, the collapse of those towers and the human carnage that followed, repeated over and over again.
- The minute by minute coverage of the DC sniper shootings, shown over and over again, emphasizing the human carnage.
- The developing war in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction with the capability to invoke mass human carnage, showing footage of the gassing of the Khurds in the north of Iraq in 1988.
- The SARS virus, characterized early on as an airborn virus, making it highly contagious with the capability of mass human carnage such as resulted from various plagues down through history.
When will enough be enough? When the people cry "uncle" and accept tyranny as their lot in life to avoid the chaos and disruption in their lives caused by crisis, to achieve order out of chaos.
Order Out of Chaos
by Tony Soldo 2006
Most people only react to what they are told to react to, like trained pets. If it's on T.V. or in the papers, only then will they react to the story.
Most people are unable to think for themselves because they have been conditioned to respond to the government propaganda delivered by the mainstream media, and then it's always choosing either ( A ) or ( B ), they give you your choices.
The "subliminal message " in regards to "spygate", (Bush approves NSA wire-tapping ), is : trust the government to protect you, the government did what it had to do to protect YOU, the American people, even though it was illegal.
Then the President tells the American people that the illegal wire-tapping stopped "dozens" of terror attacks, and back in 2002 they stopped four Asians from shoe-bombing their way into the cockpit of a 747 , and flying into the Library Tower in L.A.
The media reports this as fact and doesn't question anything about the story, so it becomes part of written history, and proof positive that illegal wire-tapping is necessary and good for us.
There is only one problem, the whole story is a lie. One of many lies since 9-11 to subliminally program the masses , in preparation to the bombing (mini-nukes) , invasion, and occupation, of Iran ,and later , Syria.
Coincidentally, A & E put out a propaganda piece about flight 93 last week and it was the most watched A&E program in their history. Then the cast of the movie along with some family members of the flight 93 victims appear on Larry King Live. More subliminal programming.
To further their "Psy-op", they release those Muhammad cartoons through-out the world, where a billion Muslims will react to them, then they show angry Muslims in the street burning flags and effigies, and then ,lefty-liberals are screaming for limits on free speech, brilliant...Machiavelli would be proud.
Throw in the Alabama church fires, the patsies will be either Muslims, or more likely, American extremists who hate (again, psychological operation meant to insight anger and fear in American Christians, about 75% of the American population, and reduce free speech ), and you have a "witches brew" of planned events by people who are following a course that has been laid out many years ago.
Remember these three things:
1: Problem, Reaction, Solution, create a problem, ( 9-11 , shoe bombers, angry out of control Muslims, burning churches, etc.), get the reaction, ( Shock, anger, fear, etc.), and , provide a solution, ( more spying on the American people, continuation of the Patriot act, bombing , invading, and occupying countries that harbor terrorists, etc)
2: Who benefits. Ask "who benefits" from all of these events. Is it the Muslim people who have been provoked to anger , OR , people who can take control of other countries resources and use their land as permanent military bases, all the while, making billions of dollars for the military Industrial Complex, and "Big Oil".
3: Follow the Money. When you see where all the American tax dollars finally end up after Congress and the President approve the budget , then you will understand the reasons behind all war and terror, or, as they say in the "business" : Order out of chaos.
Order Out Of Chaos
The puppetmasters create "disorder" so the people will demand "order". The price of "order" always entails a handing over of control and loss of freedom on the part of the citizenry. Out of "chaos" comes "order" - THEIR order - their new WORLD order.
The trick of creating chaos and then seizing power under the pretense of putting things back in order is a tried and true method of deception and manipulation. It's the meaning behind the Latin motto: ORDO AB CHAO meaning ORDER OUT OF CHAOS often cited as the motto used in Freemasonry.
It's also referred to as the Hegelian Dialect after the philosopher Georg Hegel who wrote about its effectiveness. He described it as: THESIS -- ANTI-THESIS -- SYN-THESIS.
Others have described it as: PROBLEM -- REACTION -- SOLUTION in that firstly you create the problem; then secondly you fan the flames to get a reaction; then thirdly (like Johnny-on-the-spot) you provide a solution. The solution is what you were wanting to achieve in the first place, but wouldn't have been able to achieve under normal circumstances.