“Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace”: The U.S. Geopolitical Dialectic

George Orwell in his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four referred to one of the slogans of the ruling regime as being “war is peace.” [1] The revisionist scholar Dr. Charles A. Beard wrote of “perpetual war for perpetual peace” as being a foundation of U.S. foreign policy, and Gore Vidal wrote a book of the same name.[2] Vidal wanted to examine the “terrorist” actions against the USA in a more meaningful way than the simplistic notions pedaled by the mass media, when even an American veteran, Timothy McVeigh, was induced to act against his own country. Vidal asked: “why?” [3].

Vidal referred to America’s “enemy of the month club” and as of 2001, the year of the epochal attack on the twin towers, listed hundreds of U.S. military operations that had taken place since the end of World War II around the world. At the time Kosovo was being fought over for the control of mineral resources, but in the name of “democracy.” Vidal remarked: “In these several hundred wars against Communism, terrorism, drugs, or sometimes nothing much, between Pearl Harbor and Tuesday, September 11, 2001, we tended to strike the first blow. But then we’re the good guys, right? Right.” Further: “Osama, provoked, struck at us from afar. McVeigh, provoked, struck at us from within on April 19, 1995. Each was enraged by our government’s reckless assaults upon other societies as we pursued what a great American historian has called ‘perpetual war for perpetual peace.’” [4].

Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace

Vidal placed the start of the U.S. program of “perpetual war for perpetual peace” with President Harry S. Truman, on February 27, 1947, when he created a bogeyman out of the USSR to justify the militarisation of the USA. [5]. But why did former allies in the fight against the Axis fall out immediately after the war on such a colossal and enduring basis?

The orthodox explanation is that the USSR represented the new threat of world conquest after the defeat of Nazism. But what had suddenly changed that made “Uncle Joe” Stalin as nefarious as Hitler? The answer is that Stalin refused the USA’s offer to be junior partner in what is today called a “new world order.” This world order that the USA was confident in establishing – until rejected by Stalin – rested on two foundations: (1) The creation of the United Nations General Assembly as a world parliament, where decisions would be made by majority votes. (2) The internationalization of atomic energy, again under U.N. auspices, known as the “Baruch Plan,” named after the “elder statesman” of the USA, banker and Zionist Bernard M. Baruch. The first option would mean that the Soviet bloc would be outvoted in the General Assembly, as the USA could simply buy votes, in good liberal-democratic-parliamentary style. The Soviet reaction was to insist that “authority” should be vested instead in the U.N. Security Council and that permanent members could veto any measure, hence rendering the U.N.O. redundant as a “world government” mechanism. [6]. This disquiet among globalists has recently been floated by New Zealand foreign affairs minister Murray McCully, who has raised objections to the use of the veto as having rendered the U.N.O. insufficient as a world policeman. [7].

The second predicate, the “Baruch Plan,” was regarded by the USSR as a means by which atomic power would be placed under de facto U.S. control. Ironically, American conservatives spent decades campaigning against the U.N.O. as a “communist” means towards a world state, whereas it was the USSR that had scuttled the globalist project. [8].

Taking Charles Beard’s thesis of “perpetual war for perpetual peace,” a book by that title comprised of a series of articles by leading American scholars (that is, not “court historians”) was published under the editorship of Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes in 1953. [9]. Barnes, et al examined American foreign policy from the time of Pearl Harbor. It was intended as an expose of Roosevelt’s interventionist policy that was determined to push the USA into war, to repudiate his election promise that he would never send Americans to fight in another war far from their shores. After the defeat of the Axis, Harry S. Truman invented another world bogeyman, the USSR. Barnes in his introduction cited Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and the dialectical slogan “war is peace” as the means by which to establish a world order.

Barnes and his colleagues published the book in the hope of preventing the USA from embarking on a “course of no return,” and instead maintain its traditional policy of national and continental interests. [10]. Decades ago America might have reached the point of no return. Perhaps the only way out, for the rest of the world to avoid contamination, is for the Great Whore to implode through its own diseased lifestyle, as others have done throughout history in a cycle of cultural birth, life and death. Some Russian theorists have suggested that the USA will balkanize ethnically, which might see the retaking of parts of the USA by the Latino, and the establishment of a separatist Black Belt.

However, the “perpetual war,” which in more recent times has become known – by its protagonists – as “constant conflict” – goes beyond the Cold War and Vidal’s starting point of 1947. It started even before the Roosevelt era. The USA since its founding had as a major contending premise to Puritan and Masonic millenialism, the principle of minding its own business, and developed a strong “isolationist” movement prior to both world wars. This principle of “America First” was enunciated for example by John Quincy Adams [11]:

“America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standards of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.” [12].

Messianic Legacy

What wise counsel and foresight from Adams. So how and when did this outlook change, if it goes beyond the Cold War and World War I? Actually, despite the outlook of early statesmen such as Adams, America was founded with another dichotomy at work, that of Puritanism and Free-Masonry [13] that have converged to give America a sense that it has a messianic mission to re-create the world in its image. Added to this is Judaic messianism given political impetus by Zionism. Hence, there are three messianic strands that converged within the psyche of the American ruling classes. Not surprisingly this convergence is not constant, hence there is not a pervasive conspiracy ruling every nook and cranny of American society, although President Eisenhower in his farewell speech did allude to a “military-industrial complex” that not only has political and economic influence, but also cultural. However, the generals of the Pentagon and the plutocrats of the Trilateral Commission, for example, might not always look on China in the same way, and therefore there might be a lack of consistency in U.S. foreign policies.

The USSR and the USA had convergent views on some global issues such as the elimination of the European empires. Such convergence was often regarded by elements of the Right, such as The John Birch Society and even well-informed commentators such as Ivor Benson and A. K. Chesterton, as evidence of both being run by a single cabal. Even Juan Perón thought that scenario likely because both Soviet-aligned Communists and the USA wanted his demise. Certainly there was a convergence between plutocracy and communism in seeking the elimination of the Axis.

Fortunately for the world, there is no solid unity among aspiring world-conquerors, any more than there was a unity among the gangster families of the Prohibition Era, although to the outsider they would seem to be all aiming to achieve the same goals. However, it is the synthesis into what might be called the “American ideology” that is of significance, and gives a certain cohesion to U.S. foreign policy.

Of the Free-Masonic component of the USA’s messianism, Henry Wallace, who served as vice president and secretary for agriculture with President Franklin Roosevelt, (both 32º Free-Masons) referred to this messianic outlook when writing:

“It will take a more definite recognition of the Great Architect of the Universe before the apex stone is finally fitted into place and this nation in the full strength of its power is in position to assume leadership among the nations in inaugurating ‘the New Order of the Ages’.” [14].

What he was referring to was the Masonic concept of the “Great Work” in creating a “new order of the ages,” (Novus Ordo Seclorum) the motto of the U.S. Great Seal, when alluding to the fitting of the cap-stone on the pyramid shown on the seal. Free-Masons think this will mean completion of the “Great Work”: Novus Ordo Seclorum. That at least is how Free-Masons see the world and are open in saying so.

A primary factor in the wars and revolts that have been fostered by the USA is the desire to expand export and financial markets. While we are routinely told that “nationalism,” equated with “xenophobia,” is the main cause of war, genocide, and other evils, the wars and revolts that have plagued the world for the past century have been undertaken in the name of “democracy” and “world order.” These were – and are - the declared purposes of both world wars, the “Cold War” and the present “war on terrorism.” Everywhere this has advanced it has been proceeded by the opening up of nations to privatisation and globalisation. Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” for international reconstruction after World War I, and Roosevelt’s “Atlantic Charter” establishing the war aims of the Allies, both upheld “free trade” as a major war aim. Point 3 of the Wilsonian manifesto demanded:

“The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.” [15].

Even before World War I Japan had started to encroach upon American trade interests in China. Thus, when Roosevelt started pushing Japan towards war it was in the interests of international free trade. What is of particular interest is that the ultimatum handed by U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull to the Japanese Ambassador to Washington, was, like the “Fourteen Points” and the later “Atlantic Charter” of President Roosevelt, again based around the demand that international free trade must be the basis of a world economy, and that nations should not have the right to impose trade restrictions or pursue an autarchic economic policy. The Hull memorandum demanded in this regard:

“The principle of non-discrimination in international commercial relations. The principle of international economic cooperation and abolition of extreme nationalism as expressed in excessive trade restrictions. The principle of non-discriminatory access by all nations to raw material supplies. The principle of full protection of the interests of consuming countries and populations as regards the operation of international commodity agreements. The principle of establishment of such institutions and arrangements of international finance as may lend aid to the essential enterprises and the continuous development of all countries and may permit payments through processes of trade consonant with the welfare of all countries.” [16].

The “Atlantic Charter,” imposed upon Winston Churchill by Franklin Roosevelt, reiterated these aims, namely that the USA and Britain “will endeavour, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.”

President Roosevelt’s son, Elliott, recorded that his father stated to Churchill:

“Of course after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade. No artificial barriers…” [17].

“Roosevelt stated that imperial trade agreements would have to go, and remarked that the Third Reich’s incursion into European trade had been a major cause of the war. Churchill spoke in despair, ‘Mr. President, I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire. Every idea you entertain about the structure of the post-war world demonstrates it.’” [18].

As Harry Elmer Barnes and a group of well-qualified scholars pointed out, Pearl Harbor was a contrivance to bring the USA into the war when Roosevelt’s attempt to provoke the Germans into firing the first shots in the Atlantic did not work. The U.S. ultimatum to Japan was designed to impose impossible conditions that would oblige the Japanese to act. Additional testimony comes from Roosevelt’s son-in-law, Colonel Curtis Dall, who noted the war-mongering of those in the Roosevelt administration, and later found out that Pearl Harbor had been denied forewarning of the Japanese attack. [19]. It is one of the may “false flags” that continue to be used by the USA to create war hysteria.

Zionist Factor

Both world wars were significant in establishing Israel as a permanent source of conflict at the centre of the Muslim world. Zionists persuaded the Anglo-French allies during World War I that they had common interests in supporting the creation of a Jewish state, after they had failed to persuade the Kaiser and the Ottomans. With Anglo-French promises to the Arabs for independence from Ottoman rule, in exchange for their vital help against the Turks and the Germans, the stage was set for what could have been enduring amity between the West and Arabia, and the world would today be a very different place.

Correspondence between Sharif Hussein of Mecca and Sir Henry McMahon, British Commissioner in Cairo during 1915 and early 1916 culminated in McMahon’s guarantee of British support for independence within the requested boundaries, so long as French interests were not undermined. [20]. In October 1916 a deal had been made by T. E. Lawrence and diplomat Sir Ronald Storrs with Husayn ibn ‘Alī, amīr of Mecca, and his sons, who were fighting against Turkish rule.

With both sides satisfied as to the guarantees, which included a sovereign Palestine, the Arab revolt broke out in the Hejaz on June 5, 1916. With Arab aid, the British were able to repulse the German attempt to take Aden and blockade the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. This was decisive. [21]. The Arabs also diverted significant Turkish forces that had been intended for an attack on General Murray in his advance on Palestine. General Allenby referred to the Arab aid as “invaluable.” Arabs suffered much from Turkish vengeance. Tens of thousands of Arabs died of starvation in Palestine and Lebanon because the Turks withheld food. Jamal Pasha, leader of the Turkish forces, recorded that he had to use Turkish forces against Ibn Saud in the Arabian Peninsula, when those troops should have been “defeating the British on the [Suez] Canal and capturing Cairo.” [22].

The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 between Britain and France brought “parts” of Palestine under international administration upon agreement among the Allies and with the Arabs represented by the Sharif of Mecca. [23]. This already had the seeds of duplicity as it gave the two powers control over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Transjordan, reneging on the commitment that had already been given by the British to Sharif Hussein, and without his knowledge.

When Bolshevik Russia exposed the Sykes-Picot agreement to the Arabs in 1918, Hussein sought clarification from Britain, and Lord Balfour replied that: “His Majesty’s Government confirms previous pledges respecting the recognition of the independence of the Arab countries.” [24]. This was confirmed by the British “Declaration to the Seven” in Cairo. [25].

However, Sir Mark Sykes, responsible for the Sykes-Picot Agreement, suggested to the British War Cabinet that if Palestine was offered as a Jewish homeland, Jewish sympathy could be mobilised for the Allied cause, and the USA might be induced to join the conflict. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis used his influence to induce President Woodrow Wilson to adopt an interventionist policy. [26]. In return for Zionist support the British reneged on their promises to the Arabs and secretly promised to support a Jewish homeland in Palestine; a guarantee that became known as the Balfour Declaration. This scheme prolonged the war, which might have been settled in a more equitable manner and hence would surely have changed the course of history.

The British Commander in Palestine, D. G. Hogarth, was instructed to assure Hussein that any settlement of Jews in Palestine would not be allowed to act to the detriment of the Palestinians. Hussein for his part was willing to allow Jews to settle in Palestine and allow them ready access to the Holy Places, but would not accept a Jewish state. Hogarth was to relate that the promises being made to both Arabs and Jews simultaneously were not reconcilable. [27].

Zionists propagandists from then started the myth-mongering about the Arabs which has continued to the present, one of the first such myths being claimed by James A. Malcolm, adviser to the British Government on Eastern Affairs. Malcolm was raised by the Sassoon family, the wealth and power of the Sassoon dynasty being based on the opium trade. Malcolm was instrumental in bringing the negotiations together for the Balfour Declaration. He subsequently claimed that the Arab revolt was of no account in the war effort, [28] a slur very different from the memoirs of T. E. Lawrence, who became bitterly disillusioned with the way the Arabs had been betrayed. [29].

Constant Conflict

Russia and Israel were soon at loggerheads, as the ancient animosity between two messianic legacies resumed after a brief interlude of Soviet support for Israel. In 1952 the “Prague Treason Trial” equated Zionism with treason and hanged a group of mostly Jewish Communist party leaders on the charge. The Soviet bloc became a centre of anti-Zionism. [30]. Russia resumed its messianic mission (which not even atheistic bolshevism could repress for long, let alone the blandishments of Western consumerism), mystical in nature, and world-wide in outlook, “Russia the Third Rome;” described by Dostoyevsky et al, a messianism that rivals that of Judaism and of American dispensationalism.

Russia, the perennial problem, again repudiated the offer of junior partnership in a “new world order” when Putin assumed power. The situation was analogous to Stalin’s rejection of the same offer directly after World War II. The outcome has been to plunge the world into a permanent state of chaos until such time as fatigue and corruption pushes the world into the pestilential embrace of the USA.

The chaos of decades in large part can be traced to the ousting of what Stalin called “rootless cosmopolitans,” [31] including in particular Trotsky and his followers. Such was the Trotskyite hatred of the USSR thereafter, that Trotskyites entered into the ranks of the Cold War, and became leading American ideologies and strategists, to the extent that Sedova Trotsky became a protagonist for the USA during the Korean War on the grounds that the USSR was a greater enemy to socialism than the USA. Trotskyites became founders of the so-called “neo-conservative movement,” which is consequently anything but “conservative.” They linked up with liberal-Democrats and founded the National Endowment for Democracy to promote “world revolution.” They have fomented “colour revolutions” across the world. They spread moral and cultural rot to destroy traditional societies, in the name of “progress,” “human rights,” and “democracy,” [32] and like the bogus revolt of the New Left during the 1960s and 1970s manipulate youth with their opiates of moral and cultural decay, and boast of it. [33].

Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters [34] appears to have coined the term “constant conflict,” the name of an article he wrote in a leading military strategy journal, in which he said of this political and cultural subversion:

“We have entered an age of constant conflict.

“We are entering a new American century, in which we will become still wealthier, culturally more lethal, and increasingly powerful. We will excite hatreds without precedent.

“Information destroys traditional jobs and traditional cultures; it seduces, betrays, yet remains invulnerable. How can you counterattack the information others have turned upon you? There is no effective option other than competitive performance. For those individuals and cultures that cannot join or compete with our information empire, there is only inevitable failure … Information, from the internet to rock videos, will not be contained, and fundamentalism cannot control its children. Our victims volunteer.

“It is fashionable among world intellectual elites to decry “American culture,” with our domestic critics among the loudest in complaint. But traditional intellectual elites are of shrinking relevance, replaced by cognitive-practical elites--figures such as Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg, Madonna, or our most successful politicians--human beings who can recognize or create popular appetites, recreating themselves as necessary. Contemporary American culture is the most powerful in history, and the most destructive of competitor cultures. While some other cultures, such as those of East Asia, appear strong enough to survive the onslaught by adaptive behaviors, most are not. The genius, the secret weapon, of American culture is the essence that the elites despise: ours is the first genuine people’s culture. It stresses comfort and convenience--ease--and it generates pleasure for the masses. We are Karl Marx’s dream, and his nightmare.

“Secular and religious revolutionaries in our century have made the identical mistake, imagining that the workers of the world or the faithful just can’t wait to go home at night to study Marx or the Koran. Well, Joe Sixpack, Ivan Tipichni, and Ali Quat would rather “Baywatch.” America has figured it out, and we are brilliant at operationalizing our knowledge, and our cultural power will hinder even those cultures we do not undermine. There is no “peer competitor” in the cultural (or military) department. Our cultural empire has the addicted--men and women everywhere--clamoring for more. And they pay for the privilege of their disillusionment.

“There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.” [35].

Peters, without specifically saying so in the way of Spengler for example, writes in terms of societies as organic and in addition identifies the USA as a contagion. Peters lauds the USA’s “strength” as being its ability to infect others, the result being etiolation. It is the pseudo-strength of a sick man able to kill others through spreading his virus. Peters is unequivocal about that. One might point out that such parasitism, like a cancer, destroys the host, and thus itself. There is something sociopathic about such an ultimately self-destructive power-imperative; not a will-to-power, and hence will-to-life, but a will-to-death; thanatos rationalised as freedom; the freedom to die. Like somebody infected with the AIDS virus who embarks on a mission to inflict as many others before his own death.

Creative Destruction

This is the moral and cultural rot that Stalin called “rootless cosmopolitanism,” and that has been used as a softening up process by the USA since the Cold War, in what has been called the “Cultural Cold War.” [36]. From the moral and cultural rot has sprang the “colour revolutions” in the name of the type of libertine freedom with which the USA beckons. Even the USSR succumbed and, like dominoes, the Soviet bloc states; then the “Arab Spring.” Those states that did not succumb to internal revolt were bombed into submission; namely Serbia, Iraq, Libya and presently Syria.

Michael Ledeen [37] as one of the primary advocates of America’s messianic mission, in similar terms to that of Peters, calls on the USA to fulfil its “historic mission” of “exporting the democratic revolution” throughout the world. Like Peters, Ledeen predicates this world revolution as a necessary part of the “war on terrorism,” but emphasises that “world revolution” has always been the “historic mission” of the USA:

“We are the one truly revolutionary country in the world, as we have been for more than 200 years. Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically, and that is precisely why the tyrants hate us, and are driven to attack us. Freedom is our most lethal weapon, and the oppressed peoples of the fanatic regimes are our greatest assets. They need to hear and see that we are with them, and that the Western mission is to set them free, under leaders who will respect them and preserve their freedom.

“It is time once again to export the democratic revolution. To those who say it cannot be done, we need only point to the 1980s, when we led a global democratic revolution that toppled tyrants from Moscow to Johannesburg. Then, too, the smart folks said it could not be done, and they laughed at Ronald Reagan’s chutzpah when he said that the Soviet tyrants were done for, and called on the West to think hard about the post-Communist era. We destroyed the Soviet Empire, and then walked away from our great triumph in the Third World War of the Twentieth Century. As I sadly wrote at that time, when America abandons its historic mission, our enemies take heart, grow stronger, and eventually begin to kill us again. And so they have, forcing us to take up our revolutionary burden, and bring down the despotic regimes that have made possible the hateful events of the 11th of September.” [38].

Here we see the Orwellian dialectical phrase “creative destruction” as the basis of a messianic “world revolutionary mission” that Ledeen states is innate to the USA. The enemy is tradition, which is brought down in the name of “freedom.” This is the “freedom” to trade and consume; primarily the trade and consumption of the poisonous junk of Culture-degeneration that is actively fostered by the USA.


1. George Orwell, Nineteen-Eighty-Four (1948), 1: 1.

2. Gore Vidal, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got To Be So Hated (2002).

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., “A Letter to be Delivered.”

6. K. R. Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy (London: Black House Publishing, 2012), pp. 125-136.

7. K.R. Bolton, “New Zealand’s naivety at United Nations has sinister implications,” Foreign Policy journal, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/06/29/new-zealands-naivety-at-un-security-council-has-sinister-implications/

8. K. R. Bolton, Stalin op. cit., pp. 125-134.

9. Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell, Idaho: The Caxton Printers, 1953).

10. Ibid., viii.

11. John Quincy Adams served as 6th U. S. President, as first U.S. Ambassador to Russia, and was an opponent of Free-Masonry.

12. Cited by Barnes, et al, op. cit.

13. Nicholas Hagger, The Secret Founding of America: The Real Story of Freemasons, Puritans & the Battle for the New World (London: Watkins Publishing, 2007).

14. Henry A. Wallace, Statesmanship and Religion (New York: Round Table Press, 1934), pp. 78-79.

15. Woodrow Wilson, “Fourteen Points,” 1918, II, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1918wilson.html

16.  “Outline of Proposed Basis for Agreement Between the United States and Japan,” Section I, November 26, 1941.

17. Elliott Roosevelt, As He Saw It (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946), p. 35.

18. Ibid., p. 31.

19. Curtis D. Dall, FDR: My Exploited Father-in-Law (Tulsa: Christian Crusade Publications, 1968), pp. 133, 162, 164.

20. Sami Hadawi, Bitter Harvest: Palestine 1914-79 (New York: Caravan Books, 1979), p. 11.

21. Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection What Price Peace? (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978), p. 17.

22. Quoted by Lilienthal, ibid.

23. Hadawi, op. cit., p. 12.

24. Lilienthal, op. cit., 18.

25. Ibid.

26. Hadawi, op. cit., 13.

27. Lilienthal, op. cit., 18-19.

28. James A. Malcolm, “Origins of the Balfour Declaration: Dr. Weizmann’s Contribution” (London, 1944). http://www.mailstar.net/malcolm.html

29. T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom (London: Black House Publishing, 2013), “Introduction” by Bolton.

30. Bolton, Stalin…, op. cit., pp. 149-155.

31. Ibid., pp. 28-54.

32. Bolton, Revolution from Above (London: Arktos Media Ltd., 2011), pp. 213-244.

33. Ibid., pp. 184-200.

34. Peters, at the time a Major, served with the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. His area of expertise is the former Soviet bloc and Eurasia.

35. Ralph Peters, “Constant Conflict”, Parameters, U.S. Army War College, Summer 1997, pp. 4-14.

36. Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters (New York: The New Press, 1999).

37. Ledeen has been consultant to the U.S. National Security Council, State Department and Defense Department, and is currently working with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which aims for “regime change” throughout the world.

38. Michael Ledeen, “Creative Destruction: How to Wage a Revolutionary War,” National Review online, 20 September 2001.