This is a non-politically motivated research paper that exposes religions involvement in political policies that are leading the world to war. It is designed to help the reader see exactly why religious freedoms as we once understood them are coming to an end.

1. REPORT: AS THE WORLD POWERS HEAD TO WAR THEY IMPLY THAT YOUR FAITH IS PART OF
THEIR POLICIES. TO DISAGREE MEANS TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH REVOLUTION OR
EXTREMISM
Disclaimer
Because of the nature of this subject, the information covered must out of necessity document political events,
political policies, and remarks in relation to politics and faith; however it is not a political commentary or an
attempt to encourage civil disobedience, revolution, insurgency or otherwise influence political policy or undermine
the governments in any way. I would ask that if the reader refers to this research, it would not be used in that
manner. If any use this information to incite that kind of behavior then you and those you encourage will bear the
responsibility for your life and the lives of others. If the reader is frustrated with the loss of religious rights please
use the court system to peacefully defend those rights.
Foreword:
Besides being an indictment of the political meddling of religion, this is a historical
perspective that chronicles the use of religion, tacit or otherwise, in global geopolitical events
today. I would like the reader to understand this document is not denying, nor excusing the
existence of terrorism and abuses by violent religious extremists, nor is it suggesting that
such actions should not be condemned. The terrorism and wars now being committed in the
name of God are disgusting and deserve to be judged by humanity and God. But should that
same God and should humanity be less outraged at faiths and religions that have colluded
with governmental policies, thereby turning political wars into ones directed by faith? My
desire is to give the reader the tools needed to examine and discern if their religion is either a
partner of political policies which are leading to a geo-religious war, or stoking rebellion and
revolutionary fires. With that being said, this research speaks to the millions of sincere,
moral, peace loving people of faith who do not have political motivations and who refuse to
take part in wars, revolution, rebellion or violence because they view it as immoral.
This research will lift the veil of secrecy that has surrounded this topic for years and lay bare
how main faiths, some without even realizing it, have been taken over by governmental
policies, unless they dare prove otherwise. I say “dare prove otherwise”, because what
people have not come to realize is this one simple fact about recent governmental policies;
YOUR faith must be a part of THEIR religious policy, or it will be regarded as a radical religious
view that should be watched and extinguished. So dear reader, if you do not want your faith
to be implicated in war, revolution, civil strife or extremism read this report and get prepared
emotionally, physiologically and spiritually for what’s coming, because the depth of your faith
is about to be severely tested.
There are over 30 references to various documents, resolutions, news reports and related
articles that will shed light on how the East and the West have created diverging religious
ideologies supported by the respective faiths involved. Russia is leading the East by standing
with the tenents of the Russian Orthodox Church to promote a model of traditional religious
values associated with family and culture. On the other side of the globe, evidence will be

2. provided to show how the UN is being heavily utilized by Anglo America to project power
over religions via tolerance and human rights issues. In both examples, whether described as
“moderate” or “extreme”, religious people are being used like a tool to drive war, chaos and
revolution with the expressed purpose of influencing policies and manipulating the outcome
of a geopolitical power struggle. This explosive situation is spreading from the Middle East,
Africa, and Ukraine, into Europe, the Baltics, Russia and Anglo-America. I intend to prove to
the reader the direct consequences of what happens when religion and faith is merged into
political policies of national security and war, or opposing ideals that lead to revolution,
rebellion and violence.
Lastly this research will help the readers to understand how true religious freedom and
religious free speech has already been undermined and will be dissolved as war, religious
chaos and revolution intensify in the world. Study the supporting references and you will
see clearly how the things documented in this report are a harbinger of what is to come; the
world is accelerating toward a geo-religious bloodbath. It is my hope the reader grasps why
and how religious rights are now vanishing in the crossfire of war and religious chaos
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
THE WEST AND THE “GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM”
How the foreign policy of the Unites States and the West was shaped after 9/11
Regarding American foreign policy since 9/11, Zbigniew Brzezinski’s observations are very
enlightening. Mr. Brzezinski is a former highly regarded American Statesman, at the time of this
writing he worked as a Professor of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University's
School of Advanced International Studies. In 2005 an article written by Professor Brzezinski
entitled “The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign” 1 appeared in the online magazine The American
Interest. His writing talked about the lack of US foreign policy prior to September 2001 and
how American foreign policy was largely shaped from the “shock of 9/11”. Below is an excerpt
from his article which reveals how the “global war on terrorism” and “the foreign policy of
9/11” are intrinsically linked:
The Bush Administration had no foreign policy to speak of prior to September 2001, so it is no
surprise that its policy since then largely has been shaped by the shock of 9/11. It is a policy
derived from a single traumatic event, formulated in an atmosphere of public outrage, and that
both rests on and exploits the anxieties that this event understandably unleashed. The
Administration's immediate response was a campaign to imprint on the public mind its own
definition of the new challenge faced by America, followed by the articulation of a more
comprehensive global response to that challenge. Both focused on 9/11 as the defining moment
and as the source of inspiration. The result has been a policy as narrow in its focus as it is far -
reaching in its implications.

3. The intellectual core of the foreign policy of 9/11 is the notion of a fundamental strategic
discontinuity in world affairs. The menace of terrorism, abetted by irresponsible "rogue" states
and made more ominous by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, is said to have
largely replaced the dangers posed by the more traditional rivalry among major powers. In that
context, the emphasis on the "global war on terror" has been symbolically central, fostering
patriotic mobilization and legitimating actions that otherwise could be viewed as extra-legal or
even outright illegal. To the framers of the new strategy, 9/11 legitimated the de facto
suspension of habeas corpus even for U.S. citizens, "stress interrogation" (a.k.a. torture) of
detainees, and unilateral military action--just as Pearl Harbor eventually legitimated Hiroshima
in the public mind. These are, it was felt, the inescapable, painful, but ultimately necessary
attributes of waging a just war.
The focus on terrorism was also politically expedient because of its intrinsic vagueness. After
9/11, every American knew, without having to be told, what the word "terrorism" implied. As a
consequence, there was no need to explain how a "global war on terror" had to be waged, or
how one would know when such a novel war against an elusive foe had ended. There was no
need to be more precise as to who the terrorists actually were, where they came from, or what
historical motives, religious passions or political grievances had focused their hatred on America.
Terrorism thus replaced Soviet nuclear weapons as the principal threat, and terrorists
(potentially omnipresent and generally identified as Muslims) replaced communists as the
ubiquitous menace.
Brzezinski focuses on the “foreign policy of 9/11” as “symbolically central, fostering patriotic
mobilization and legitimating actions that otherwise could be viewed as extra-legal or even
outright illegal”. He compares the patriotic mobilization of 9/11 with the same kind of military
action that “legitimated” the use of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. In his words there
was “no need to be more precise as to who the terrorists actually were, where they came from,
or what historical motives, religious passions or political grievances had focused their hatred on
America”. In saying this Brzezinski reveals the convenience of using accusations of “terrorism”
to ignore grievances; including those of a religious nature. Exactly how did the “foreign policy
of 9/11” and America’s “global war on terrorism” effected the “religious passions” of America
and the world?
Today slogans promoted by the global war on terrorism are ‘there is never any justification
whatsoever for terrorism’ and that ‘terrorism should not be associated with any religion’. A
child could observe how this divides the “religious passions” of people into two distinct
categories; those for the policy and those against. Like a program that runs by default on a
computer, this 9/11 foreign policy assumes that religions would automatically by default take
America’s side because of the shocking nature of terrorism. This development implies or
suggests that a person’s faith and “religious passions” must be aligned with the 9/11 policy,
otherwise they would not only be ignored as invalid, but they would be isolated and targeted as
a potential threat associated with terrorism. The condition of that policy leaves no real
religious neutral ground to stand on in regard to the “global war on terrorism” (GWOT).

4. Hence, the war on terrorism was a very successful in subtly drafting religion and main faiths to
the side of America, aligning them with its geo-political interests.
Professor Brzezinski revealed how the Cold War waged with the former Soviet Union was
replaced with the “war on terrorism”. As suggested by Brzezinski “extra-legal” pre-emptive
military action was taken globally, resulting in an international hot war focusing on “religious
extremists” who were fighting against American policies and interests. Countries deemed
“state sponsors of terrorism” were also targeted for intervention. History shows Iraq and
Afghanistan were invaded and occupied by American and allied forces of the West under NATO
command. Pakistan was also subject to allowing “extra-legal” efforts of America to use military
drones to spy, hunt and kill terrorists in Pakistan. This has since expanded into other countries
such as Yemen, Somalia, Libya, as well as countries in Central Africa. As documented later,
these efforts include the use of militarized counter terrorism forces.
Initially after 9/11 only the “extremist” segment of the Muslim religions had come under
suspicion globally. Domestically, in the United States, powerful agencies and executive policies
were developed and put in place to protect the “homeland” and prevent terrorism. This
included “extra-legal” efforts of the Patriot Act enforced by Homeland Security and other linked
Federal agencies such as the IRS and the FBI. Internationally, these efforts were closely
mirrored in Britain after it a suffered its own 9/11 type of event in London on July 7, 2005.
Spain likewise suffered a similar event in Madrid on March 11, 2004 and then promptly put in
place security initiatives that mirrored America’s . Canada, France and EU member states have
all done something similar in cooperation with America’s 9/11 foreign policy on terrorism.
According to the Business Insider 2 initially even “Russia gave its consent to Washington and its
NATO allies to use Central Asia as a staging post for the Afghan war after the al Qaeda attacks
on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001”. The aforementioned brief history shows the initial
strength and momentum of the 9/11 foreign policy directed primarily against Muslim
extremists, but that policy has evolved further, how so?
Non-profit agencies push all religions including Christian toward the 9/11 policy
In the wake of 9/11, sweeping Executive laws were created in America and directed against any
who possess “religious passions” opposed 9/11 policies and America’s international interests.
In the United States it could be observed that efforts to curb terrorism were opposed by the
“religious passions” of vocal conservative groups, organizations and individuals who used the
media to convey their “political grievances”. When these groups publically denounced the
“extra-legal” efforts of the Federal government as an infringement of their constitutional rights
and freedoms, or questioned the narrative of the 9/11 policy, the Federal authorities began to
associate these religious groups and individuals with “extremists”, and potential terrorists. I
am mentioning this not to side with those groups but to demonstrate how the 9/11 policy had
evolved to target Christians fundamentalists in America including those associated with political
Conservatism. But in reality, all religious organizations and groups in America were pressured
to refrain from publishing anything that contradicted or appeared critical of the GWOT.

5. In a very indirect manner some non-profit organizations were at times used by Federal agencies
in helping to define extremism or hate. For example, in America the Southern Poverty Law
Center 3 (SPLC) is a non-profit organization that identifies and tracks “hate groups” as well as
issues of intolerance and discrimination toward the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender
(GLBT) community. The SPLC has been consulted by the news media as an authority on such
issues and at times acts as a mouth piece for Federal agencies such as the Department of
Homeland Security (DHLS). The SPLC targets the speech or views of religious groups whether
political or non-political to pressure those groups to conform to a policy shaped out of the war
on terrorism.
For example, although the SPLC says “viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify
organizations for listing as hate groups”, the SPLC does identify religious groups as “hate
groups” because of “disseminating” certain so called scientific “facts” about gay and lesbian
people. The SPLC states, “even as some well-known anti-gay groups moderate their views,
smaller groups, most of them religiously motivated, have continued to pump out demonizing
propaganda aimed at LGBT people.” (Italics added) What I highlighted in italics shows how
larger religious organizations had already conformed and moderated the dissemination of their
views, leaving the SPLC with the task of tracking and pressuring the smaller groups. I
understand there are some very bold religious groups who publicize derogatory comments
about many things, so I’m not criticizing the existence of the SPLC. Tolerating others along with
showing respect and avoiding unnecessarily provocation is reasonable and considerate in
ordinary dealings let alone religious matters, so I understand the efforts of the SPLC. In saying
this I am not endorsing the SPLC either. What I am showing is how agencies like SPLC are used
in a backhanded manner to help Federal agencies to enforce limits on religious free speech
thereby changing the definition of free speech to conform to a political policy of tolerance.
What has happened to the “religious passions” associates with free speech? What was once
viewed a true religious free speech has now evolved into “hatred” which is associated with
“extremism” and can result in criminal charges. This labeling produces tremendous pressure on
all faiths and religious organization to accommodate the demands of the Federal authority and
voluntarily moderate their dissemination of religious views, whether that dissemination occurs
through the media, the internet, or print. By the admission of the SPLC, this kind of moderating
is expected by all religious groups, including larger evangelical groups or those that proselytize.
That means it’s really not a choice, religious organizations and groups must defer to the 9/11
policy and soften or water down their message for public dissemination if they are to avoid
being put on a hate “watch list” for offending the sensitivities of others. They also must avoid
saying anything that would be perceived as critical of the GWOT. This qualifies as censorship
according to the dictionary definition. Hence, the source of the dissemination, that is the legal
religious bodies are held accountable for what their flocks say and teach. This highlights a very
simple ultimatum given to religious leaders and bodies; either side with the 9/11 policy or you
will be viewed as inciting extremism or intolerance, anything less is viewed as unacceptable.

6. Ask yourself, has the religious organization you belong to been affected? Have you noticed a
change in the dissemination of religious views? Suffice to say, what people have failed to
notice is that faiths and religious organizations in America are being pushed to work together to
promote religious tolerance among each other as ‘partners’ of a global war. One might even
say it resembles a national religious ideology.
HOW THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE “9/11 POLICY” IS USED TO CONTROL INTERNATIONAL
MAIN FAITHS AROUND THE WORLD.
Analyzing the use of the United Nations more closely, it becomes clear that the foreign policy of
9/11 has greatly influence the United Nations which has allowed great expansion of the “global
war on terrorism”. The “Better World Campaign” (BWC) is a nonpartisan organization based in
Washington D.C. largely funded by Ted Turner. The BWC works to strengthen the relationship
between the United States and the United Nations and encourages U.S. leadership and the
media to support and enhance the UN’s ability to carry out its international work. One of its
Key issues related to International security is “combating terrorism”. Note what is stated in its
affirmation entitled “Expanding the Reach of U.S. Counter-Terrorism Efforts” 4
… “after September 11, 2001, terror networks operate in countries that are very often beyond
the reach of American access and influence. The United Nations is an important and critical
partner because it can amplify and broaden the reach of American counter-terrorism efforts. In
particular, it can reach those countries in which the United States does not have strong bilateral
relationships or sufficient credibility to operate”.
In other words without the United Nation’s, the foreign policy or 9/11 could not be so
successfully carried into various countries by Western militaries. In turn that policy has greatly
influenced the development of UN strategies, task forces, and resolutions designed to “counter
terrorism”. The UN has been heavily utilized by America and Britain to make the “war on
terrorism” truly international, and it is being used to influence international main faiths and
religions to side with America’s policy and foreign interests. If there is a national religious
ideology that grew from 9/11, it has now grown to become and international ideology and an
internationally enforced strategy.
Noticeably, since 2006, the United Nations has helped upgrade and strengthen that strategy
internationally by promoting greater international tolerance between faiths, including the
promotion of tolerance toward homosexuality as a fundamental human right. In fact, counter
terrorism measures of the UN are now being linked with the combating of words or actions that
incite intolerance and discrimination. This is a highly significant progression when speaking in
terms of influence over main faiths of the world. The UN now has the potential to sanction
which religions are acceptable and which are extreme, which are tolerant and which are
intolerance, which discriminate which do not, based on 9/11 policy.
Anglo America performs a coup d’état over main faiths and religions through the UN

7. Exactly how have main faiths especially Judaism, Christianity and Islam been commandeered to
work for Anglo America and its global war on terrorism? To understand it the reader must be
willing to analyze carefully the following UN resolutions and efforts made by Federal agencies in
the United States. (For this portion I am putting the links directly below the comments for easy reference)
As mentioned before, America’s 9/11 foreign policy has greatly influenced the UN and in turn
the UN has set up task forces, strategies and resolutions that reflect like a mirror the global war
on terrorism. This explains why the United States has adopted powerful UN initiatives and
resolutions within the last 8 years, because it empowers its foreign policy with the backing of
international main faiths who are tacitly working for America’s international interests. For
example notice Washington’s press release on Sept 12, 2012 which posts the comments made
by the White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough in regard to “international religious
freedom”:
“Foreign policy is no exception. The President has discussed how many of our initiatives—
promoting the development that lifts people from poverty, strengthening the food security that
reduces hunger, combating disease, working to prevent atrocities in places like Libya and in
central Africa—these efforts advance American security and American interests. At the same
time, they are rooted in the Biblical call to care for our fellow human beings”.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-denis-mcdonough-international-religious-
freedom
In the above statement can you see the religious power behind the “foreign policy” of America?
The above comment of Mr. McDonough serves as an admission of how counter terrorism
efforts to “prevent atrocities in places like Libya and in central Africa” are being linked to
Christianity when he says “these efforts advance American security and American interests”
and “are rooted in the Biblical call to care for our fellow human beings”. (Italics added) His
statement directly implicates the main faith of Christianity for its support of America’s foreign
policy. Christian charity is used to justify military intervention into countries destabilized by
“atrocities” associated with religious extremism. However, it’s not just Christianity that is being
appropriated for the foreign policy of Anglo America and the UN. Note what President Obama
is quoted as saying in the same press release:
“we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”- President Obama
President Obama’s statement indicates collusion with other main faiths such Islam and Judaism
for the purpose of subjugating them to American interests endorsed by the UN. If you’re not
convinced read further and note how the Chief of Staff continued in the press release:
“We (America) worked successfully with governments, international organizations and civil
society at the U.N. Human Rights Council to pass the landmark (U.N.) Resolution 16/18 to
protect people around the world who are targeted because of their faith. It calls on nations to
take concrete actions against religious bigotry, and it eliminates previous language that sought
to penalize “defamation,” which undermined free speech and expression. Instead, it recognizes

8. that the open debate of ideas and interfaith dialogue “can be among the best protections
against religious intolerance.
“Building on this progress, Secretary Clinton and the OIC Secretary General last year brought
together some 20 nations, international organizations and the Vatican in Istanbul to focus on
combating religious intolerance. The United States hosted a follow-on meeting to pursue specific
steps we can take—as individual nations and as an international community. And through this
“Istanbul Process” we’ll continue to work with our international partners to reduce religious
bigotry, discrimination and violence.
…..“Finally, we’ll continue to encourage the interfaith cooperation that brings different religions
together to meet shared challenges. As with our faith-based initiatives here in the United States,
we recognize that religious leaders and organizations are uniquely positioned to serve
communities in need, whether it’s health, education, development or conflict prevention..
….. The focus of such efforts is on the tangible benefits they deliver in our daily lives. Still, the
lesson is unmistakable—our security, prosperity and dignity as human beings are advanced
when members of different religions partner on common challenges. As such, faith-based
organizations will continue to be indispensable partners of the President’s development agenda
Clearly the comments indicate the lengths America and the United Nations are willing to go to
influence and “encourage interfaith cooperation that brings different religions together to meet
shared challenges”. International “faith based organizations” are being enlisted as “partners”
to “advance” security, prosperity and dignity around the world. Or as the White House Chief of
Staff commented at the beginning of the press release “these efforts advance American
security and American interests”. The U.N. resolution HRC 16/18 referred to was adopted by
America and U.N. member states including Britain. It seems Anglo America not just America,
has performed a religious coup d’état, or a takeover, of religion by enforcing the international
main faiths of the world to serve Western interests and policies via the UN.
But that’s only the beginning, a stronger follow up U.N. resolution UNGA RES 67/178 was
adopted without vote on March 28, 2013. It had a stronger tone in respect of limitations on the
right to freedom of expression, and the harmful impact that religious passions or expressive
acts may have in terms of contributing to violence. Also RES 67/178 declares “terrorism cannot
and should not be associated with any religion”; while later it declares the responsibility of
“religious bodies” and “the media” to actively promote tolerance. It warns of the serious
national and international implications of incitement to discrimination and violence, and it calls
for global awareness of these “serious implications”. Undoubtedly, this newer resolution
provides the means to enforce religious tolerance and combat religious intolerance between
main faiths. It is undeniable that the international main “religious bodies” representing
Judaism, Christianity and Islam among others, are being pressured to promote tolerance among
one another in harmony with Western policies shaped by 9/11:

9. …and reaffirming further that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it
special duties and responsibilities, in accordance with article 19 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights
Expressing deep concern at those acts that advocate religious hatred and thereby undermine the
spirit of tolerance,
Reaffirming that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality,
civilization or ethnic group,
Underlining the fact that States, regional organizations, non-governmental organizations
religious bodies and the media have an important role to play in promoting tolerance and
respect for religious and cultural diversity and in the universal promotion and protection of
human rights, including freedom of religion or belief,
Also recognizes the strong need for global awareness about the possible serious implications of
incitement to discrimination and violence, which may have serious implications at the national,
regional and international levels,…
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/178
Interestingly the above resolution on “Combating Intolerance” specifically references language
from “The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy” (RES 60/288) adopted in 2006
which refers to terrorism as “one of the most serious threats to international peace and
security”. Furthermore RES 60/288 evokes references to past Security Council resolutions to
combat terrorism. Note the strong tone used in the “Global Counter Terrorism Strategy” below
and let the reader keep in mind it is now pinned or linked to the “Combating Intolerance”
resolution:
Reiterating its strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed
by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, as it constitutes one of the most serious
threats to international peace and security,
Recalling all General Assembly resolutions on measures to eliminate international terrorism,
including resolution 46/51 of 9 December 1991, and Security Council resolutions on threats to
international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, as well as relevant resolutions of the
General Assembly on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while
countering terrorism,
Reaffirming that acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations are
activities aimed at the destruction of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy,
threatening territorial integrity, security of States and destabilizing legitimately constituted
Governments, and that the international community should take the necessary steps to enhance
cooperation to prevent and combat terrorism,

10. Reaffirming also that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion,
nationality, civilization or ethnic group,
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/terrorism/Index/60-288en.pdf
Observably, the “Combating Intolerance” resolution (67/178) shifts the original UN resolution
(16/18) away from a more general focus. This is a significant upgrade to the 9/11 policy and the
global war on terrorism, because it broadens the definition of what is associated with terrorism
by adding intolerance and discrimination into the mix. Put together, all these UN resolutions
advocate international cooperation of main faiths while obligating nations to take the
“necessary steps” to combat terrorism, intolerance and discrimination. What defines whether
a religion or faith is good or bad? Little do religious people of faith realize all their religious
sentiments and passions are weighed and defined by the 9/11 policy. This is an extremely
powerful sifting mechanism that separates “extremism” as defined by the West out from
among main faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam etc. The so called moderate faiths are
accepted as legitimate the rest are ‘watched’ for associations with terrorist organizations.
UN resolutions put to work in America though “faith based initiatives”
In 2009 President Obama signed an “Executive Order” creating the institution of the “White
House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships” which harmonized with the
above mentioned UN resolutions. Its efforts were referred to earlier by the White house Chief
of Staff in his speech about “international religious freedom”. Its role is stated as follows by the
White House Press office:
“The White House Office for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will be a resource for
nonprofits and community organizations, both secular and faith based, looking for ways to make
a bigger impact in their communities, learn their obligations under the law, cut through red tape,
and make the most of what the federal government has to offer.”-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ObamaAnnouncesWhiteHouseOfficeofFaith-basedandNeighborhoodPartnerships/
“The White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships within the Domestic
Policy Council works to form partnerships between the Federal Government and faith-based and
neighborhood organizations to more effectively serve Americans in need.”-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ofbnp
What is the purpose of reaching out to various religious groups and faiths in America to form
“partnerships”? One reason mentioned in the Whitehouse definition of its “faith based
initiatives” is to help religions “learn their obligations under the law” . What laws are religious
groups obliged to follow? Given the context of this initiative, the focus is on obeying newer
Executive directives since the start of the “global war on terrorism”, and this would include

11. America’s obligation to enforce UN resolutions. Remember the Whitehouse Chief of Staff
earlier stated that the faith based initiatives in America were designed to help “religious leaders
and organizations” recognize how they “are uniquely positioned to serve communities in need,
whether it’s health, education, development or conflict prevention”. (Italics added) He
mentioned this in tandem with UN resolutions designed to carry the same religious initiative
forward internationally.
Hence, any legal charitable religious organizations that receive financial benefits from the
‘initiative’ must operate within the confines of “American security” and “development” towards
“conflict prevention”. In other words, they become religious partners working directly for the
9/11 policy in association with the UN to promote tolerance. And this national ideology is not
limited to religions that are involved in that “faith based Initiative”.
At the 2011 “Istanbul Process” referred to in the White House press release on “international
religious freedom”, Secretary Clinton speaks in regard to UN Res 16/18 and reveals the
intention of taking “practical steps to engage with members of religious minority groups” so
“that antidiscrimination laws” are “enforced equally”. Her statement comes about 2 years after
the executive “faith based initiative” was signed. When you add the newer strengthened
resolution 67/178, which is now pinned to the counter terrorism measures of the UN, it is clear
the efforts to rigorously enforce tolerance among all religions and religious groups in America is
well under way and the media is helping to play a very large part.
Media empowered to support 9/11 policy and affect tolerance among faiths
The media in the West acts like a sieve for religious passions. It focusses heavily on the results
of religious intolerance in the world which helps the audience to differentiate between
tolerance and extremism. This is demonstrated by simply watching the news. The public is
repeatedly shocked with disturbing images of violence and chaos which is attributed to violent
“sectarianism”, “extremism”, and “uncompromising” religious “fanaticism”. What normal
person wouldn’t want to promote tolerance among faiths especially when the audience is being
told of the possibility that such religious violence and chaos is coming to the West. What the
audience is seldom told is the impact enforcement of tolerance is having on true religious
freedoms, like religious free speech. Why is this? Simply put, the news media is centered and
pinned to the 9/11 policy, including UN resolutions such as resolution 67/178 which highlight
accountability for how the various forms of media and communication are used.
The media is being used, even in subtle ways to nudge the Western religious populace to accept
homosexuality and support efforts to promote tolerance between main faiths globally. Any
contrary “alternative” media coverage is condemned because it often appears hostile to these
global initiatives. As an exercise, read the comments section under alternative news posts
while you glance at the following words below, and you will see what I mean:

12. (RES 67/178) “ Condemns- any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audiovisual or electronic
media or any other means”
Today, we have clear examples of how the news media is involved in pressuring faiths and
individuals to moderate the dissemination of religious views. The following are a two
established cases that illustrate accountability for the use of “media” and “print” which was
described above by UN resolutions. The first is a relatively recent violent event in Benghazi,
Libya in 2012. The violence was reportedly blamed on a low grade film called “The Innocence
of Muslims” which originated from America. CNN 5reports “a YouTube trailer of the film, which
cast the Prophet Mohammed in an unflattering light, was highlighted by Egyptian media and
did spark protests in parts of the Muslim world”. The Director who made the movie served jail
time for an unrelated offense and upon release from prison stated that the “Obama
administration acted irresponsibly in initially linking the deadly terror attack last September 11
on the U.S. diplomatic … to outrage over “The Innocence of Muslims.””.
The second case comes from Britain and is more recent. A political leader is reportedly
arrested for quoting in public Winston Churchill’s negative comments regarding Islam.
According to the New American online journal, publicly voicing such sentiments could land the
politician two years in prison for a “Racially Aggravated Crime” 6. I have not follow up this case
because I believe the point is obvious enough as is.
In the cases above, the “use of print” and “electronic media” is the disseminating source of the
incitement or aggravation. Regardless of the legality surrounding each case which is often
clarified and published much later, what is clear is that these two incidents served to send a
message to people of all faiths living in Anglo-America and the West. The idea conveyed to the
public is to edit or censor what could offend the sensitivities of the differing faiths or face
criminal charges that relate to incitement to violence. Hence, people are being judged by a kind
of public court broadcast through the news and legalities of the case are often ignored. Even if
you disagree with some of the details of these two cases, you cannot deny the complete
harmony between UN resolutions, the 9/11 policy and the media. This is censorship, and like it
or not, it’s killing true religious free speech. I don’t think too many would disagree that this
unprecedented in America.
Later in this research you will see how the 9/11 policy is evolving toward identifying
“extremists religions”, that means that it is very possible the news media’s tactics could evolve
further by focusing on religious beliefs themselves, not just on how those beliefs are publicized.
Consider the following questions carefully:
Amid growing religious chaos, how will the media portray a religious group that holds
apocalyptic views and identifies itself as “the true religion” and declares all others are “false”? If
the news report provokes public outrage or a possible religious backlash will the media still
respect that religions right to hold those beliefs, and will the media be fair? How will the news

13. media portray the preaching and proselytizing of such a group, whether through the internet,
TV, radio, print etc.?
If you answer those questions honestly you begin to understand the power of news media
centered and focused on a policy of tolerance toward other faiths. As demonstrated earlier,
regardless of legalities, which are often examined later, the news becomes the catalyst for
negative reactions by the public, and by this means it is given power of being judge and jury,
simply by the focus of its content.
Note the comments made by U.S. Secretary Hillary Clinton at the “Istanbul Process for Freedom
of Religion, Belief” 7 in 2011 regarding the implementation of UN resolution 16/18. Below are
some pertinent excerpts, please think about those questions above as you contemplate her
words:
Religion can be such a powerful bond, but we also recognize that it can be misused to create
conflict. There are those who, for reasons actually having little to do with religion, seek to instill
fear or contempt for those of another creed…
…it’s one thing if people are just disagreeing. That is fair game. That’s free speech. But if it
results in sectarian clashes, if it results in the destruction or the defacement or the vandalization
of religious sites, if it even results in imprisonment or death, then government must hold those
who are responsible accountable. Government must stand up for the freedom of religion and the
freedom of expression…
…And so the United States has made a commitment to support the 1618 implementation efforts,
but we also would hope that we can take practical steps to engage with members of religious
minority groups. We know that antidiscrimination laws are no good if they’re not enforced, and
if they’re not enforced equally, we know that governments which fear religion can be quite
oppressive, but we know that societies which think there’s only one religion can be equally
oppressive…
Again it is important to keep in mind that Res 16/18 has been updated without vote by Res
67/178 which uses stronger language to enforce tolerance and combat intolerance and is linked
with counter terrorism measures of the UN. With this in mind answer those questions above in
the face of constant media attention to “sectarian violence” and religious chaos created by
religious “fundamentalists”.
...it’s one thing if people are just disagreeing ..That’s free speech… But if it results in
sectarian clashes, … if it even results in … death, then government must hold those who
are responsible accountable.
Don’t get me wrong here, I agree the above words can be used in a powerful way to protect
religious minorities and I am grateful for the laws that exist to protect religious rights.
However, where the media is concerned, it can become quite a different story as shown in the
paragraphs above. Think about this, the frequency in which the media broadcasts “sectarian”

14. and religious violence could even be perpetuating the violence among sectarian groups, yet the
news media broadcasts those stories repeatedly will impunity. Why? Remember the news
media is driven and empowered by the 9/11 policy and UN resolutions. If the news begins to
focus more on the reasons for all those “watch lists” and “warnings” circulated in America
among the SPLC, DHLS, NSA, FBI, CIA, the military, and the police, it stands to reason they will
eventually target the attitude or trait some American religious groups have in common with
extremists; mainly “disagreements” with the 9/11 policy of tolerance.
As this research has revealed, the Federal authorities have already equated the refusal to
moderate religious views with “hate” which is the same behavior extremists display when they
provokes sectarian violence. The reader should understand how true religious freedoms and
rights are on the media’s cutting board and the news holds a cleaver that can sway public
opinion as it chops at religious “fundamentalism”. Clearly it has been demonstrated, that in a
time of religious chaos, the media has the resolve and the mandate to ignored religious rights
and affectively promote tolerance between main faiths. The media will not stand up for
religious rights in the purest sense or in the full application of those laws; it will only stand up
for rights bent to support the so called “moderate” and “tolerant” faiths.
Spying - an effective form of intimidation to support the 9/11 policy
Another tactic that has proved to be an effective way to intimidate faiths to conform to the
9/11 policy, is to demonstrate how personal communications and internet usage can all be
monitored, tracked and collected. Should the need arise the authorities can use the
information collected. In essence, the disclosure of spying conveys the message that
authorities can track your movements in the real world or through the internet. There is no
real privacy. Compare the disclosure of spying with the following strategy recommended for
NATO in 2007. The authors of “Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World- Renewing
Transatlantic Partnership felt NATO needed to convey a single “unambiguous” message to all
their enemies as follows:
“There is not, and never will be, any place where you can feel safe; a relentless effort will be
made to pursue you and deny you any options you might develop to inflict damage upon us”.
(pg. 95)
This message is obviously intended to convey to enemy “non-state actors” that counter
terrorism measures will find them no matter where they try to hide and deny them the
opportunity to attack. Certainly the message there is no place where an enemy can hide
comes across loud and clear with the discloser of heavy spying by America and Britain.
Remember Professor Brzezinski mentioned how terrorism “replaced the dangers posed by the
more traditional rivalry among major powers”. Hence, NATO’s traditional rival the USSR has
also been replaced by the “global war on terrorism” and that means their enemies are now
largely fundamentalist religious enemies. Also recall that President Bush stated America would
be “fighting this war at home”. Therefore the disclosure of the intense spying has a powerful

15. effect on religious people in the West, it tells them that if they do not support the 9/11 policy
they may face an investigation into all their activities, whether financial, personal or internet,
for alleged association with terrorists. Have you or the religion you belong to felt intimidated
by the discloser of spying and did that discloser pressure either to conform to the 9/11 policy?
Religious neutrality fades into the 9/11 policy
After Islamic terrorists were blamed for the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11,
2001, President George Bush stated “either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”,
indicating there was no neutral ground on the issue of terrorism. He also stated the
“international coalition against terror” would "fight this evil and fight until we are rid of it", and
that Americans would even be “fighting this war at home”.8 I think most normal people are
grateful for a measure of protection from terrorism, the same as they are grateful for other
laws that protect people against crime and violence. However, few realized the impact the
“global war on terrorism” has already had on shaping religious views and will yet have in the
future.
Presidential Directives or Executive Orders issued since 9/11 continue to encroach on religious
freedom with “extra-legal” intimidation, such as the spying mentioned above. Initially the “war
on terror” was used to justify spying on Muslim faiths. Muslim’s in America complained that
the FBI “sent undercover agents posing as worshippers into mosques”, to pressure “Muslims to
become informants” 9. However as we have learned, that spying in America now includes
tracking the activities every person by means of metadata collection, and that would logically
include their populations “religious passions”. Britain has even excelled America in surveillance
and tracking. According to a report by New York Times, “Britain is estimated to have more
CCTV cameras than any other country, including China. They are found in every store, railway
station, school or bus — one for every 11 people on these islands”.10 Think of the pressure all
this tracking, surveillance and data collection exerts on religious bodies and leaders to support
the 9/11 policy of Anglo America if they do not want to be associated with terrorism.
We have already discussed how the SPLC lists religious groups into two categories, those willing
to compromise who “moderate their views” and those who are identified as “hate groups”
because the refuse moderation and see it as compromise. The reality today is that geopolitical
tensions are building quickly as a result of angry “religious passions” rising between main faiths ,
provoked by what is described by the media as “sectarian violence” or “fundamentalists”. This
development should demonstrate to the reader how quickly American Federal authorities can
enforce UN resolutions in harmony with national security measures to extinguish the “religious
passions” of those who remain uncompromising in issues of tolerance. For example if a religion
rejects homosexuality as moral and claims other religions are false because they accept
homosexuality, this may soon be perceived as resistance to the policy of tolerance and viewed
as inciting religious discrimination that can lead to violence between main faiths.

16. Within the framework of the research considered so far, what would happen during an
explosion of religious chaos in the world? Would it not result in the full implementation of the
above UN resolutions regarding the combating of intolerance? Would not the counter
terrorism measures of the UN backed by the armies of the West, including NATO become fully
operational to enforce those mandates in the name of peace, stability and security? It is logical
to conclude that the Federal agencies would use the “moderate” religious voices of the main
faiths of the “international community” to promote peace and stability between those faiths.
In a high state of emergency any resistance to the full implementation of those polices would
be met with Presidential directives, legal orders, and counter terrorism measures. Likely in the
hysteria of war, any religious groups that would resist this effort of compromising for the sake
of tolerance would be accused of being an enemy of peace and an advocate of war or
terrorism. I mention the above only because it is a real and frightening possibility. Study the
past examples of World War I and II and observe how war hysteria affected minority religions
that refused to involve themselves in the war effort, now add religious tolerance issues into the
mix and you begin to realize what this research is all about.
Amidst war hysteria and religious chaos, I assume any violent attempts by religious groups to
resist the 9/11 policy would be crushed with counter terrorism measures. Also like WWII any
claims of “neutrality” might be viewed as seditious toward that policy. It would force religious
groups to give up or go into hiding causing the authorities to use counter insurgency measures.
And think what might happen if there is no legal recourse available? Might this actually
accelerate a violent reaction by armed Christian or Muslim fundamentalists? I personally
believe this is the scenario that American Federal authorities and the Western alliance have
been preparing for in their homelands. Again as President Bush stated, “either you are with us
or you are with the terrorists” and I assume this would apply even more so in regard to issues
related to religious tolerance. I fear what will happen if the words of President Bush are fully
realized and peaceful religious groups are labeled “extremist”. They will discover the legal rug
of religious rights has been pulled out from under them.
The time to legally challenge the impacts of what appears to be a national religious ideology
may have run out, but that remains to be seen. I’m not a lawyer, and I’m rather insignificant,
however, should religious tensions escalate sharply now is the time to educate yourself on the
inevitable consequences of what enforced tolerance between faiths will mean for your personal
faith and for the religion you belong to. Things are already heating up; below you will see how
the battle between religious ideologies of the East and West is beginning, whereas true
religious freedom is ending.
Diverging religious ideologies appear between East and West
The diverging or differing religious ideologies between the East and West was unclear until the
last few years. However, by analyzing the recent events in Ukraine we can now identify how
two distinct religious ideologies have immerged; one headed by Anglo-America, the other
headed by Russia. Russia has obviously refused to accept Anglo-America’s UN endorsed 9/11
foreign policy on religious tolerance which embraces homosexuality as a human right. Instead,

17. President Putin has chosen a divergent policy that stands on the traditional family and cultural
values associated with religious orthodoxy, enforced with anti-blasphemy laws. As the events
in Ukraine intensify, what has gone unnoticed is how the battle lines between the Eastern bloc
and Western bloc are being drawn over religious ideology with both blocs vigorously seeking
broad religious backing for their policies in the event of war. This has created a huge religious
divide or chasm in the world, just imagine the religious chaos if they go to war. The results
would truly be a geo-religious war with enormous cross boarder repercussions in each other’s
territory. Why then is religion so important to each of these blocs?`
The Eastern and Western Blocs have been forged out of interests in energy production,
transmission and security. That means both are interested in accessing, controlling, and
maintaining the same strategic regions to secure those economic interests tied to energy. The
East and West are on a collision course not just over religion but over energy. Over the Last
decade we have witnesses how both Russia and Anglo America are attempting to control
strategic regions in Africa, the Middle East, the Baltics and Europe. The populations of these
regions are largely religious; therefore logic dictates the competing world powers would be
highly interested in influencing and controlling the corresponding religions of these regions. In
view of the insertion of religion into their diverging policies, it is safe to say that gaining the
support and control of international main faiths such as Judaism, Christendom, and Islam has
become a strategy of the highest priority, especially when you consider the strategic
importance both world powers place on regions vital to energy production and transportation.
It does not take a genius to see how religious ideology is being played by both sides to gain
support, gain territory and gain dominance.
Religious rights begin to dissolve as the geo-religious war intensifies.
Observably the potential for governments to use and manipulate religion and faith to
destabilize their adversaries becomes clear. The opposing policies treat religious persuasion
like a Trojan horse hidden in plain sight in their enemy’s territory. Religious passions can
become a useful tool among the populace that can be used to quietly destroy an opponent
from within. For example; The West is admittedly seeking to reach the heart of the populace of
Russia, Iran and China with human rights issues, and issues of religious freedom in association
with tolerance, for the purpose of fomenting revolution from within. The East admittedly tries
to use orthodoxy to reach into the heart of the religious populace of the West, particularly
Europe, thereby hoping to manipulate Western policy.
Speaking personally, both policies imply my faith is part of their policy unless I prove otherwise.
Interestingly both Russia and Anglo-America have created a political environment that makes it
impossible to resist either policy without being accused of being an extremist. This condition
has existed for the last 10 years, but is beginning to heat up and is about to get a lot worse.
During a time of religious chaos and war, think of how difficult it will become for peaceable
people of strong faith to communicate and prove that they do not want their faith to be
implicated in either policy, while at the same time avoiding accusations of backing a revolution

18. or being associated with terrorists or extremists. Think real hard about that, because that is
what this research has been trying to help you understand.
If war intensifies between the East and the West over Europe, why might the Federal
authorities of opposing countries react so strongly to protect their respective homelands?
Whether violence is caused by religious groups or visited upon them by religious persecutors;
prohibitions and bans can be used to crush true religious freedom and religious free speech,
because the ideological battle can easily cross over into the opposing nation’s domain. How
would the authorities in America and the general population view the “religious passions” of
Christian or Muslim fundamentalists who resist compromise on the issue of homosexuality or
religious tolerance? Would they be judged as extremist or as supporting Russia’s religious
ideology? If you doubt this could happen in North America then why do organizations and
agencies like the SPLC already link so many religious conservative groups with extremism or
hate, and why do they “watch” them. In the East, would religions that are associated with a
battle for human rights and religious freedom be viewed as Western sympathizers who could
destabilize the region? If you doubt this, realize this is already happening in Russia with
conscientious objectors.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are known as conscientious objectors because of their politically neutral
stand and because they view all war as immoral. Also they tenaciously defend their religious
rights by legal means. The Witnesses have been registered as a religion in the Russian
Federation since 1992 and benefit from legal religious rights and freedoms afforded by its
constitution. How are they being affected by this ideological battle between the world powers?
On July 30, 2014, the “Taganrog City Court convicted and sentenced 7 of 16 Jehovah’s
Witnesses on trial for attending and organizing their peaceful religious meetings… In reaching
his decision, the judge relied on the September 2009 ruling of the Rostov Regional Court to
liquidate the Local Religious Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Taganrog. Although the
2009 ruling targeted only the legal entity, the judge determined that the religious activity of all
of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Taganrog and surrounding districts was banned”11. In other words
the new ruling completely bans their faith and literature in Taganrog. Their faith is criminalized
and fined as extremism.
How was the current Russian verdict reached? “During the proceedings, the court examined
over 60 volumes of “evidence” that mostly consisted of recordings of religious services, prayers,
and Bible readings—the same religious services that Jehovah’s Witnesses hold worldwide”.12
According to an attorney for Jehovah’s Witnesses, during the criminal trial “Russian authorities”
were “misapplying the Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity to the religious worship of
Jehovah’s Witnesses with increased intensity since 2009.”13 Even “their literature is added to
the list of extremist materials”. Why had this prosecution intensified in Taganrog?
As stated earlier, Russia has banned sacrilegious insults to religious believers within its territory
as of July 1, 2014. The blasphemy law criminalizes sacrilegious behavior and insults, and if
found guilty individuals face fines or imprisonment. This may explain why President Putin has
appointed the Russian Orthodox Church as the official Church of the Russian Federation and it

19. also explains why Jehovah’s Witnesses are being targeted, because it strengthens the dominion
of the ROC and it strengthens Russia control over the differing faiths. Obviously Jehovah’s
Witnesses are not welcome in Russia because their beliefs and teachings convey the idea of
“true religion” and their strict policy of political neutrality implies the politically aligned ROC is
false. Perhaps because of the anti-blasphemy laws, offense was also taken regarding their
apocalyptic beliefs of the coming of God’s Kingdom, such as the end of human governments
and false religion. Hence the prosecution of the Witnesses will continue thought Russia unless
the blasphemy laws are rescinded.
Details on the religious ideology of the East will be considered later, but it is reasonable to
conclude that the religious prosecution that has begun in Russia will inevitably be mirrored in
the West as religious debate intensifies and cross boarder religious arguments turn violent.
Remember the spying that is occurring in America is to find out which “religious passions” pose
a danger to its homeland. Albeit, the approach to extremism taken in the West is different than
Russia, the purpose is similar; stop conflict by controlling religion. Also the Western policy is
built around fluid concerns of religious intolerance between main faiths that can be adjusted
accordingly; unlike the Eastern policy that is built solidly on anti- blasphemy laws.
That means as religious chaos intensifies, like Russia the American Federal authorities could use
religious “extremism” as the excuse to prosecute conscientious objectors like Jehovah’s
Witnesses. How so? They could use UN mandates to enforce greater “tolerance” which implies
the Witnesses must compromise their faith and get involved with politically motivated
interfaith peace initiatives. Therefore, because the Witnesses are an international religion,
view war as immoral, refuse to get involved in politics, and view politically motivated religions
as false, their religion would likely be criminalized as “extremist”. Their legal entities and the
operation of their facilities could also be perceived as a threat to the national security of
America and the West. It is logical to think that in the name of 9/11 policy the authorities may
enact laws to freeze all their assets and force a liquidation of them.
What about politically motivated religious organizations and groups in America who refuse to
support war or refuse to get involved in the same interfaith peace initiatives? They would
share a fate similar to the Jehovah’s Witnesses with the exception of more bloodshed. Why do
I say this? Based on the information presented in this report, tackling such politically motivated
religious groups, who are already being watched, will likely take priority especially if they are
armed and threaten revolution. Just read the comments section of many alternative news
channels on YouTube and you will understand what I mean. The tense religious environment in
North America will accelerate the decisions religious people make, which means they will have
to decide whether to support war, revolution or claim neutrality, either of which can get you
killed or imprisoned.
The decisions religious persons will face
This report has not been published to encourage people to take sides with either political policy
or go along with a revolt or revolution. It has been published to open the reader’s eyes to

20. understand the East and West have two distinct and clashing religious ideologies, that when
fully enforced dissolve the ability to claim religious neutrality or conscientious objection. If an
actual physical battle or war begins in Europe between the world powers, like in the past, they
will more aggressively seek greater religious backing and support for the war effort. Likely
under the pretext of “peace and security” the West, including Anglo-America, will be urgently
trying to enforce the policy of religious tolerance to maintain cohesion in a drive to war. The
religion you belong to may already tacitly approve or directly support their war efforts. On the
other hand, you may be a member of an opposing religious group that rallies for revolution and
political changes to stop the drive to war, but remember that can lead to counter insurgency
measures and violence. Therefore if you are a person of deep faith and conviction, if you do
not have political motivations, if you do not want to be implicated a geo-religious war,
revolution or extremism because you view war and violence as immoral, then what will you do?
The following is what I have done to prepare spiritually, what you do is up to you:
First, I have discreetly educated myself and have reached the point where I do not wish for
people to assume my faith is part of any political policy or extremist; hence this research
reflects my personal position in public. In fact, I would be willing to use it as my personal
testimony in a court of law. I live in the West and I understand the policy of the global war on
terrorism and how it leaves me only two choices, ‘either I’m with the terrorists or against
them’. I will not accept those two choices as my only choice! The reason is not because of
extremism, but because I believe the constitution of the country I live in guarantees a 3rd choice
that allows me to stay neutral in political policy, unless that constitution no longer applies.
Make no mistake, I realize the “global war on terrorism” guarantees I will eventually be
imprisoned for insisting on the 3rd choice, because the Western 9/11 policy does not recognize
a 3rd choice. However, my faith is not part of any national religious ideology, so I have
embraced the fact that my decision could drastically affect my life and my family.
I know in a court of law I will have to prove my intentions are peaceful and genuine. I have
done this years ago when I officially withdrawn my membership from a religious organization I
once belonged to because its views began to offend my conscience. I did so in writing, while I
respectfully explained why, without incident. I feel I am now prepared to defend my personal
faith and my position in a dignified respectful manner. I intend to follow the laws to the best of
my knowledge without compromising my faith. I do not interfere in political matters or the
political objectives of others; however I will never relinquish my privilege to discuss the
meaning of scripture with others if they are willing to listen.
I won’t rely on the media, alternative or main stream, to defend my position. As already
proved, the news media is not my friend, they are not on my side, especially when I am
attempting to find a neutral position in a policy which enforces religious tolerance; most will eat
me alive and spin my position the way they want, others may be bound by legalities. So I must
be prepared to defend my personal faith within the court system, if that is available to me. If
not, I may have to try to survive clandestinely in the shadows of a dark spiritually time hoping
for mutual encouragement from family, friends and spiritual companions to not give up my

21. faith. If I am imprisoned I would pray my true friends and family would not abandon me
purposely.
If the authorities wrongly accuse me of being a religious extremist or of intolerance and
proceed to arrest me, my approach when facing imprisonment will be as follows:
I WILL NOT RESORT TO VIOLENCE TO AVOID ARREST. Also I will avoid protesting, avoid
having loud verbal tirades of abusive speech with news organizations or Federal
authorities, police, relatives in regard to my faith or my rights. The same goes for my
use of print, or any form of electronic media like YouTube, Twitter ect..
I AM READY to defend my faith legally, peacefully, logically, reasonably, while allowing
for open respectful dialog toward the person I’m talking to, including respect for the
legal avenues available to me, if there are any legal avenues available to me. Although
imperfect, I haven’t tried to fake my spirituality or pretended to be something I’m not,
the court would see through that anyway. I am what I am because of my faith, my love
of God, my love of neighbor and my love of scripture. Those things give me no reason
to be ashamed or apologize, except when it comes to my own person failings, and for
those I am deeply sorry. Hence, I rely on God’s mercy and support during difficult times
as well as the support of genuine friends who are interested in my wellbeing.
I REMEMBER THAT AMIDST ACCELERATING RELIGIOUS CHAOS anything that might be
interpreted as excited “religious passions” will likely be associated with extremism,
therefore I intend to keep my emotions in check; remain calm, composed, dignified and
respond with a mild in temper and respect for others. I will not fight, but reason and if I
overreact I will apologize.
As you can see above, I have not failed to grasp the significance of a geo-religious war on my
faith, neither have I feared to grapple with the consequences of my decisions. What about
you? True, this report could simply be my faith at work, preparing my heart and mind for the
inevitable. However, I believe it’s safe to say, if you have come this far in this research than
you’re probably already wondering what you will do if faced with similar decisions. One thing
for sure, in the near future, you will have to make a decision; either go with the flow or not. If
you have not contemplated the seriousness of those decisions, then when a decision is thrown
in your face, you might act rashly and that could get you killed by revolutionaries or the
authorities. But also realize, you may be killed anyway no matter how hard you try to be good
and peaceable. Under those circumstances will you still cling to your beliefs in God?
Are you finally getting the big picture? Do you get what’s being asked of you by either the
GWOT or the Eastern policy? If you are a religious person you are being pressured to identify
your faith with one of those policies. Understand in both cases whether East or West your
decision is identified with one of three things; war, revolution or extremism. The reason I have
gone so far to tell you my intentions is to get you to reflect soberly on reality and because I
believe the battle has already begun.

22. A “SIGNAL SPEECH” DEFINES THE BATTLE BETWEEN OLD AND NEW RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGIES
On May 26, 2014 President Obama gave a foreign policy speech in Brussels 14. In this “signal
speech” to the youth present, he touted the “ideals” of America and Europe, including the
struggle for homosexuals to be granted equal rights with heterosexuals. President Obama
associated the struggle to accept homosexuality with the West’s ongoing struggle for freedom.
In a reference to events in Ukraine, Obama said “those ideals have often been threatened by an
older, more traditional view of power” which “roots itself in the notion that by virtue of race or
faith or ethnicity, some are inherently superior to others ”. Obama was contrasting the East
with a Western “vision based on representative democracy, individual rights ” including “respect
for those of different faiths and backgrounds”. It is obvious that that Obama was codifying the
9/11 foreign policy with issues related to religious tolerance including the acceptance of
homosexuality.
President Obama continued, “There will always be intolerance” then he advocated the use of
“international laws” to protect immigrants and minorities and the rights of “our gay and lesbian
brothers and sisters”. What international laws was Obama referring to? In his speech he made
a direct reference to “the means to enforce those laws” by referring to the “United Nations and
a Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. He was promoting the UN as “an international
system that protects the rights of both nations and people”. Then he revealed how NATO was
and will respond to escalating events in Ukraine, showing how those “international laws” are
being enforced:
“What we will do -- always -- is uphold our solemn obligation, our Article 5 duty to defend the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of our allies. And in that promise we will never waver; NATO
nations never stand alone. Today, NATO planes patrol the skies over the Baltics, and we’ve
reinforced our presence in Poland. And we’re prepared to do more. Going forward, every NATO
member state must step up and carry its share of the burden by showing the political will to
invest in our collective defense, and by developing the capabilities to serve as a source of
international peace and security.
Again, these comments isolate the struggle between the East and West as one that stems from
the difference in religious ideology. Russian President Putin stands against homosexuality in
favor of firmer tradition religious values (the old), whereas the West represents the promotion
of religious tolerance and the acceptance of homosexuality (the new). But this begs the
question, if the battle lines between the East and West have been drawn on religious grounds
then what is the catalytic agent used to wage the war? As it was in WWI and WWII, religions
are again being used to back policies that result in war, policies they hope will determine the
outcome of the war and give them the dominant position in formulation of new world order.
The sponsoring religions are greedily hoping for a piece of the geo-religious pie.

23. In view of the strength and evolution of the 9/11 foreign policy, Russia’s attempts to use
religion and traditional religious values associated with the Russian Orthodox Church to gain
traction in Europe will likely be vilified by “moderate” main faiths of the West as a “extremism”
or “fanaticism” that threatens the world with war and religious chaos. How can I be so sure of
this outcome? There has been a slow but sure progression toward identifying “extremist
religions” not just groups. Examining how counter terrorism measures taken by the West in the
Middle East and Africa are supported by so called “moderate” voices of main faiths including
the Vatican.
Counter terrorism measures progress toward defining “extremist religions”
In 2006 the former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan made the following comments upon
receiving the Alliance of Civilizations Report15. The UN secretary’s warned:
“The terror attacks of 9/11, war and turmoil in the Middle East, ill-considered words and
drawings ….have notably strained relations between followers of the three great monotheistic
faiths.”
“Today, at the very time when international migration has brought unprecedented numbers of
people of different creed or culture to live as fellow-citizens, the misconceptions and stereotypes
underlying the idea of a “clash of civilizations” have come to be more and more widely shared.
Some groups seem eager to foment a new war of religion, this time on a global scale….”
Kofi Annan identified the enemies of the world as religious “groups” eager to foment a new
world war of religion by straining relations between “three great monotheistic faiths. The three
monotheistic faiths he refers to are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. But who are the religious
“groups” stirring up bad relations between the three monotheistic faiths? Through the news
media we learn those “groups” are various “fundamentalist” and “sectarian” factions or
religions stemming from any of the three monotheistic faiths . Recent events in Africa illustrate
how violent “sectarianism” is portrayed as provoking tensions between the “three great
monotheistic faiths” which the West uses to justify military intervention. When you analyze the
following reports you can see a pattern has emerged; moderate voices of the main faiths are
aligned with military intervention of the West, there is a clear portrayal of extremi sm in
religion, extremist religious leaders are targeted, and the UN is involved.
According to CNN16, in 2011 President Barack Obama sent “about 100 U.S. troops to Africa to
help hunt down the leaders of the notoriously violent Lord's Resistance Army in and around
Uganda”, stating that this organization operates throughout central Africa. The LRA was
considered a sectarian Christian military group that was seeking to overthrow Uganda’s
government as wells as destabilize surrounding countries by provoking violence between
Muslims and Christians. Countries slated for military counter terrorism intervention were
“South Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo”.
President Obama is quoted as saying "I believe that deploying these U.S. armed forces furthers
U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward

24. counter-LRA efforts in central Africa." The UN buttressed that endeavor by helping to
coordinate and promote international efforts in fighting the LRA.
Recently another religiously motivated extremist incident is being used to send US troops as
well as French and British intelligence operatives into Nigeria. Canada.com17 reports these
efforts are being made in an international effort “to help rescue” 276 girls captured by a home
grown Nigerian terrorist network lead by Muslim extremist Boko Haram. A comment from a
Nigerian Reverend is used to describe anger over the inability of the military to find his two
captured daughters. A well-known Islamic scholar “warned that having foreign soldiers on
Nigerian soil could escalate the conflict and draw foreign extremists to the West African
nation”. Ahmed Mahmud-Gumi, speaking in northern Kaduna city is quoted as saying it "may
trigger waves of terrorism never seen before." And finally in an interview with the BBC’s
foreign Hausa Service, a Former Nigerian military ruler General Ibrahim Babangida urged the
country's Muslims to rise up against the extremists sullying the name of Islam. He is reported
to have said; "Islam enjoins you to live peacefully with fellow human beings... Therefore,
anybody who will come and smear our name, all Muslims should kick against that. Muslims
should also do everything possible to stop this continued blackmail against the religion of
Islam."
In April 2013 the online publication Stars and Stripes 18 confirms US African military command
(AFRICOM) “has evolved into something more lethal as it adapts to threats posed by emerging
Islamic militant groups whose presence across swaths of Africa has made the continent a new
hot spot for counterterrorism activities”. A list of those military adventures mentioned
included the “bombing campaign in Libya”, the “overthrow” of Gadhafi, and a “rescue mission
in Somalia, dispatched combat-equipped special operators to central Africa to assist in the hunt
for a rebel warlord and beefed up its surveillance capabilities with new drone sites in places
such as Niger”. The Stars and Stripes reveals the extent of the military mission to combat
terrorism:
“Since 2011, AFRICOM also has steadily added firepower. Now, at its disposal is a special
purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force that provides a limited crisis-response capability and
conducts counterterrorism training on the continent. The U.S. Army also recently dedicated a
U.S.-based brigade to AFRICOM missions, the first COCOM to get such a specialized rotational
force. Special operations units also have been added, including AFRICOM’s own rapid reaction
force known as the Commander’s in-Extremis Force.
The Marines, meanwhile, also are developing another MAGTF, this one specially focused on
rapid reaction and crisis response in Africa”.
Going back to the statement made by the former Secretary General Kofi Annan we can
understand why he isolated the “three great monotheistic faiths” in his “Alliance of Civilizations
Report”, because they are expected to tow the line in promoting moderation and tolerance for
the sake of peace and stability in civilizations otherwise a world war may result. But Kofi’s
words are eight years old. What is the geo-religious condition of the world today? Today

25. religious chaos has greatly worsened in Ukraine, Africa and the Middle East threatening the
world with war. Also religious groups and leaders who cross the extremist line are being clearly
identified, watched and targeted. Religious violence is met with militarily interventionism.
Where are things headed in regard to religious extremism?
According to thegaurdian 19, in January 2014 former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who
considers himself a strong Catholic, called “on governments to recognize that religious
extremism has become the biggest source of conflict around the world”, and “the battles of this
century are less likely to be the product of extreme political ideology, like those of the 20th
century – but they could easily be fought around the questions of cultural or religious
difference.” The theguardian continues “the promotion of religious tolerance, both within and
between countries, states Blair, will be key to fostering peaceful outcomes around the world in
the 21st century”. Blair’s comments, when combined with UN counter terrorism measures,
confirm that a gradual evolution of the “global war on terrorism” has progressed toward
identifying “extremist religions” not just extremist groups. Notice the approach he advocates:
"the purpose should be to change the policy of governments; to start to treat this issue of
religious extremism as an issue that is about religion as well as politics, to go to the roots of
where a false view of religion is being promulgated and to make it a major item on the agenda
of world leaders to combine effectively to combat it. This is a struggle that is only just
beginning."
Look closely at his comment. Blair is suggesting world leaders need to address not just how
religious views that can lead to violence are disseminated, but to focus on the “root” of the
dissemination. In other words he is suggesting world leaders need to target religious bodies by
examining their teachings for intolerant views. Blair is only reiterating the approach already
taken by Anglo America and the UN which was covered earlier in this research. The “false
views” he is referring to are fundamental or sectarian beliefs which are regarded as intolerant
because they generally view their form of worship as true whereas all others are false.
Blair’s warning of a war of “cultural or religious differences” is a modern echo of Kofi Annan’s
comments in regard to the 2006 Alliance of Civilizations Report. Today Blair’s comments come
on the heels of massive military efforts which were bolstered by the UN to combat terrorism.
Now combating intolerance is thrown into that mix. He is just one of many Western leaders
and moderate religious voices who can be heard in policy speeches of late blaming the un-willingness
of religious compromise for the chaos in the Middle East. Most importantly when
you combined the above news items with Blair’s comments, the world has been clearly taught
by the 9/11 policy to scrutinize religious leaders and their teachings so as to identify extremist
religions that destabilize the peace between the “three great monotheistic faiths” and the
Western alliance.
The Vatican and the UN 9/11 policy

26. Where does the Vatican stand on the “global war on terrorism”? According to a Catholic
Diocese of Bridgeport 20news report, Pope Benedict XVI expressed his support of the United
States on the tenth anniversary of 9/11:
On this day my thoughts turn to the somber events of September 11, 2001, when so many
innocent lives were lost in the brutal assault on the twin towers of the World Trade Center and
the further attacks in Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania. I join you in commending the
thousands of victims to the infinite mercy of Almighty God and in asking our heavenly Father to
continue to console those who mourn the loss of loved ones…..
The tragedy of that day is compounded by the perpetrators’ claim to be acting in God ’s name.
Once again, it must be unequivocally stated that no circumstances can ever justify acts of
terrorism …..
…… It is my fervent prayer that a firm commitment to justice and a global culture of solidarity
will help rid the world of the grievances that so often give rise to acts of violence and will create
the conditions for greater peace and prosperity, offering a brighter and more secure future.
Keep in mind a traditional war has at least two sides as well as opposing views, and so does the
global war on terrorism. It consists of the moderate tolerant religions versus those that are
viewed as immoderate and intolerant. Which side did the Pope take? The Pope’s Sentiments
seem noble, yet when you scrutinize the one sided language, it’s clear the Vatican and the Pope
are giving support for the global war on terrorism in the name of God, peace and security.
There is no mention of the “innocent” lives lost as a result of American or NATO forces because
that would make it appear that the Pope is sympathizing with terrorists. This is the reason
Pope Benedict touted the war on terrorisms slogan “no circumstances can ever justify acts of
terrorism”. The Pope’s message tells other faiths that to oppose or challenge the 9/11 policy is
to justify terrorism. Remember President Bush said “either you are with us or you are with the
terrorists”. Clearly the Vatican stands with American interests and policy.
According to the Associated Press21 (AP) Pentagon Chief Panetta, who is described as a
“staunch Catholic”, met Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican in Jan 2013, “as part of a weeklong
swing across Europe”. He was in Europe because he was “meeting with defense ministers to
talk about ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Mali”. In this same news article the Pope is
described as follows:
“The pontiff has been outspoken in pressing for peace, issuing urgent appeals to end the
violence in Syria and urging the international community to spare no effort in seeking a political
settlement to the conflict. Most recently he used his annual New Year's speech at the Vatican to
call for an end to Syria's civil war. He has also pushed for peace in the Middle East, saying he
hopes Jerusalem will one day become "a city of peace and not of division."
Clearly the Vatican is working with the Anglo American global war to promote “peace” and a
“secure future”. Further evidence will be provided later to show the Vatican’s full complicity in
9/11 policy. With this in mind I would like to make an easy prediction. Because of the Vatican’s

27. close ties with the 9/11 policy, it will soon be pressured to officially accept homosexuality and
view homosexual unions as moral. The official acceptance of homosexual unions by so called
“moderate” main faiths will isolate anti-gay Christians and fundamentalists as intolerant,
divisive and opposed to religious peace and tolerance. It will also isolate Russia and Iran for
their religious opposition to homosexuality. Having what appears to be religious backing of the
three main faiths, the West will promote the idea that Russia and Iran act as religious fanatics
driving the world to war. Any religions or faiths that resist this policy will be categorized as
religious fundamentalists who sympathize with war and terrorism.
It is undeniable that the “moderate” element of the three great monotheistic faiths has
capitulated and colluded with Western foreign policy. The so called “moderate faiths” are
guilty of shedding blood because they provide the popular support to help drive the 9/11 policy
and the militaries of NATO into countries affected by “extremists” and “fundamentalists”. In
the meantime those “moderate faiths”, like the Vatican and the “World Council of Churches”
among other faiths, are rewarded with a powerful dominant position in the world over main
faiths and armed religious groups fighting for the West.
It is this type of religious hypocrisy that has been overlooked by the majority of people. If
religious extremists are condemned for shedding blood, why aren’t the so called “moderate”
religions condemned by the same authorities? As the above references prove, so called
“moderate” religions are not condemned because their bloodletting is routed through their
alliance with Western authorities and the GWOT. Such so called “moderate” religions should
be indicted for teaching the populace to believe that religious violence is completely
unacceptable unless it is sanctioned by religious leaders of the West. Clearly the Vatican
blesses the GWOT and ignores the bloodletting of religious groups fighting for the West. Below
you will see how the Vatican is now directly sanctioning the use of military force and advancing
the geo-religious war between the so called “moderate” faiths and those identified as
“extremist” religions
The appearance of the “Islamic State” accelerates the 9/11 policy among “moderate” faiths
Today a new threat has been identified by the West and has immerged in the form of ISIS or ISIL
otherwise known as the “Islamic State”. A person could ask; where will the Western narrative
of this ultra-violent religion lead? Obviously it will lead to the 9/11 policy as a useful tool to
engage the so called “moderate” voices” of main faiths to help stabilize the world from religious
chaos. I have no doubt that this endeavor will empower the Vatican further as it sanctions a
geo-religious war on extremism.
Lately, according to the Agence France-Presse22 (AFP) the “Holy See's” ambassador to the
United Nations, Silvano Tomasi “supported US air strikes aimed at halting the advance of Sunni
Islamic State (IS) militants, calling for “intervention now, before it is too late.”” He went so far
as to say “Military action might be necessary”:

28. While the Vatican vocally disapproved of the US-led campaign in Iraq in 2003 and the 2013 plan
for air strikes on Syria – fearing both might make the situations worse for Christians on the
ground – fears of ethnic cleansing by Islamists has forced a policy change.
The Vatican Radio23 recently reported how Silvano Tomasi’s quoted the following excerpt from
Pope Francis' letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations:
"In renewing my urgent appeal to the international community to take action to end the
humanitarian tragedy now underway, I encourage all the competent organs of the United
Nations, in particular those responsible for security, peace, humanitarian law and assistance to
refugees, to continue their efforts in accordance with the Preamble and relevant Articles of the
United Nations Charter."
In the same article Silvano Tomasi sanctions the use of force via the UN:
“when every other means has been attempted, article 42 of the Charter of the United Nations
becomes possible justification for not only imposing sanctions of economic nature on the state or
the group or the region that violates the basic human rights of people, but also to use force. All
the force that is necessary to stop this evil and this tragedy.”
Of course the “World Council of Churches” and representatives of other main faiths including
leaders from Islam and Judaism are taking a similar position. Suffice to say religious extremists
have rightly been exposed and condemned for violence, bloodshed and hypocrisy. Yet as we
will see under the next heading, “moderate” religious voices that support the “global war on
terrorism” support a first strike nuclear policy. Will you absolve and bless them should a
nuclear confrontation begin?
NATO CONDEMNS FUNDAMENTALISM WHILE SUPPORTING MODERATE FAITHS
In 2007 the Noaber Foundation made up of many former NATO military commanders,
published a strategy for NATO entitled “Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World.
Renewing Transatlantic Partnership” 24. I mentioned part of that strategy earlier in regard to
spying. But examining the Grand Strategy further, the reader can see that its language reflects
similar concerns as the UN and Anglo America. Of particular interest is its view on religious
fundamentalism. The preface listed six principle challenges facing the “global community” now
and in the future. The fourth point discussed the “Philosophic problem of the rise of the
irrational – the discounting of the rational”. It isolated “the ultimate example” of irrational
thinking as the “rise of religious fundamentalism, which, as political fanaticism, presents itself
as the only source of certainty”.
Under the heading “Global Trends” and the subheading “Loss of the Rational” the authors
used the decline of the European Union to demonstrate how “other sources of collective
identity” namely “religious identity” become “more prevalent” when “national identities are

29. weakened and citizenship loses its meaning”. These authors were referring to religious
fundamentalism as obstacle to political cohesion. Of course NATO was designed to uphold and
if necessary enforce the foreign policy of Anglo America and the Western form of democracy,
but its view on fundamentalism is highly interesting. What religious ideology is NATO being
encouraged to condemn?
The authors go on to target religious fundamentalism in Western societies by saying that such
“faiths” are “purely irrational belief systems” that have “overtaken a belief in religions that
have moral and rational substance, as well as cultural roots”. The authors are making a clear
demarcation between religious fundamentalism in the West and the more “rational” or
moderate traditional religions that go along with political policy. This published “Strategy”
seems to be grooming NATO to target religious fundamentalism, including religious
conservatism as a main cause of instability in the West, Europe and the world.
Fundamentalism is targeted further when the publishers declare: “The loss of the rational, in
other words, is a loss of a particularly valuable part of intellectual and moral certainty, and it
can lead people to seek certainty elsewhere, in anything from common cults to extreme cases
of fanaticism”. Here the authors of this NATO “Grand Strategy” are saying moral certainty lies
with the West, backed by the intellectual advantages and modern achievements of science.
This logically encompasses the issue of homosexuality which was addressed by Obama in his
“Signal Speech” as a ‘moral certainty’ beholden to the West and defended by NATO. The
language is quite plain, if a religion adheres to a strict code of morality it is to be considered
“irrational”, ‘fundamental’ and ‘fanatical’ especially if it seeks political solutions. Is there any
doubt that this fundamentalist “irrational” label is already being applied to Russia given what
President Obama said in his “Signal Speech”. He gave that speech in Brussels where NATO’s
headquarters is located so there would have been many prominent members of NATO present.
The West and NATO prepare for a geo-religious war and all the religious ramifications
On page 91 the authors reveal that NATO’s “Grand Strategy” consists of a consolidated global
“political objective” that must use “all elements of power” within “a nation or an alliance of
nations”. They advocate that such a “grand strategy comprises the carefully coordinated and
fully integrated use of all political, economic, military, cultural, social, moral, spiritual and
psychological power available”. (Italics added) Such comments prove beyond a shadow of a
doubt they intend to use the “spiritual”, “moral” and “psychological power” of moderate
“rational” faiths to support and promote the Western policy of peace, stability and security.
Within the last decade the acceptance of homosexuality has been tagged to the “moral” and
“spiritual” certainty of the West. Recent policy speeches by Western leaders such as president
Obama and British Prime Minister Cameron reveal that this “Grand Strategy” has been adopted
by NATO.
The concluding message of the “Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World” is that the security
and stability of America and Europe is rooted in the “firm conviction” the NATO alliance “stand
shoulder to shoulder” and “show the common resolve” to see its “commitments through and to

30. prevail” with the goal of “helping to prevent war and armed conflict elsewhere – or at least to
contain and end it as quickly as possible”. Compare the statements of NATO, Anglo America,
the West, and the UN today and you can tell the “common resolve” has been achieved.
Internationally, the Western religious-geopolitical alignment to the 9/11 policy has been
accomplished though the UN. Domestically, the homelands have been prepared as well. And
lastly the international religious ideology is polished to a shiny finish with the help of moderate
voices of the main international faiths. All systems are functioning and ready for a geo-religious
war and all its ramifications.
Moderate religious voices of main faiths support a nuclear first strike option
Today by observing the news one can observe the clear intention of Anglo America to use
NATO’s military force combined with the ‘spiritual and moral power’ of “rational” moderate
religious voices to counter Russia’s religious ideology. As the potential for war intensifies the
idea of promoting “peace and security” will likely become the platform used to control any
religious chaos and keep main faiths aligned with Anglo America’s 9/11 policy. Keep in mind
that the 9/11 policy includes the preemptive use of nuclear weapons for “conflict prevention”.
Please note the Grand Strategy on pages 96-97:
What is needed is a policy of deterrence by proactive denial, in which pre-emption is a form of reaction
when a threat is imminent, and prevention is the attempt to regain the initiative in order to end the
conflict.
….Escalation is intimately linked to the option of using an instrument first. …
Such a concept of interactive escalation requires escalation dominance, ….indeed all instruments of soft
and hard power, ranging from the diplomatic protest to nuclear weapons….
Nuclear weapons are the ultimate instrument of an asymmetric response – and at the same time the
ultimate tool of escalation. Yet they are also more than an instrument, since they transform the nature of
any conflict and widen its scope from the regional to the global. Regrettably, nuclear weapons – and with
them the option of first use – are indispensable, since there is simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free
world. …It should therefore be kept in mind that technology could produce options that go beyond the
traditional role of nuclear weapons in preventing a nuclear armed opponent from using nuclear weapons.
In sum, nuclear weapons remain indispensable, and nuclear escalation continues to remain an element of
any modern strategy.
In view of the foregoing, a person can see that the 9/11 foreign policy has command of the
moderate religious bodies of “three great monotheistic faiths”. Anglo America is using religion
in its quest for global dominance the same as Russia is. Religions are positioned to back a
possible future war, even one that could become nuclear. Again, I want the reader to
understand that I am not documenting this to influence political events or processes or start a
revolution. My purpose is to reveal and document exactly how religions are complicit in
geopolitical events leading to a possible nuclear bloodbath and help people understand exactly
what is going on in the realm of religion.