To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone—to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink—greetings!
==1984 (Orwell, George)
At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. There are, however, potentially powerful states dissatisfied with the current situation and eager to change it, if they can, in directions that endanger the relatively peaceful, prosperous and free condition the world enjoys today. Up to now, they have been deterred from doing so by the capability and global presence of American military power. But, as that power declines, relatively and absolutely, the happy conditions that follow from it will be inevitably undermined.
Preserving the desirable strategic situation in which the United States now finds itself requires a globally preeminent military capability both today and in the future. But years of cuts in defense spending have eroded the American military’s combat readiness, and put in jeopardy the Pentagon’s plans for maintaining military superiority in the years ahead. Increasingly, the U.S. military has found itself undermanned, inadequately equipped and trained, straining to handle contingency operations, and ill-prepared to adapt itself to the revolution in military affairs. Without a well-conceived defense policy and an appropriate increase in i defense spending, the United States has been letting its ability to take full advantage of the remarkable strategic opportunity at hand slip away.
We started from the premise that U.S. military capabilities should be sufficient to support an American grand strategy committed to building upon this unprecedented opportunity. We did not accept pre-ordained constraints that followed from assumptions about what the country might or might not be willing to expend on its defenses.
At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible.
For most of the 1990s, Congress and the White House gave balancing the federal budget a higher priority than funding national security. In fact, to a significant degree, the budget was balanced by a combination of increased tax revenues and cuts in defense spending.
Today, the United States has an unprecedented strategic opportunity. It faces no immediate great-power challenge; it is blessed with wealthy, powerful and democratic allies in every part of the world; it is in the midst of the longest economic expansion in its history; and its political and economic principles are almost universally embraced. At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals.
The military’s job during the Cold War was to deter Soviet expansionism. Today its task is to secure and expand the “zones of democratic peace;” to deter the rise of a new great-power competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East; and to preserve American preeminence through the coming transformation of war.
==Project For The New American Century– September, 2000–Rebuilding America’s Defenses, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby, Jeb Bush
PNAC’s first public act was to release a “Statement of Principles” on June 3, 1997. The statement had 25 signers, including project members and outside supporters (see Signatories to Statement of Principles). It described the United States as the “world’s pre-eminent power,” and said that the nation faced a challenge to “shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests.” In order to achieve this goal, the statement’s signers called for significant increases in defense spending, and for the promotion of “political and economic freedom abroad.” It said the United States should strengthen ties with its democratic allies, “challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values,” and preserve and extend “an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” Calling for a “Reaganite” policy of “military strength and moral clarity,” it concluded that PNAC’s principles were necessary “if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.”–Wikipedia
The date December 7th 1941 was indeed a “Day of Infamy”, but it is a title to be shared by FDR and the Japanese. Roosevelt provoked the attack, he knew of where the Japanese fleet was and when the attack would occur. FDR sacrificed Americans in Hawaii to ignite the needed flames of American passions for War. A war that the vast majority of Americans wished to avoid. FDR lied and Americans died, as did Wilson before him. As has every President seeking war since. You make the moral judgement as to whether the means justified the ends, but a brainwashed citizenry, a stupefying ignorance and willful acceptance of the power elites supporting myths only allows the ruling class in Washington to be ever bolder in their quest for power and empire. We are, indeed, teetering on Armageddon and America is the catalyst.
What was the solution for an isolationist America and a DOD budget perceived as insufficient to maintain and expand the American Empire in 2000? Provocation with the blood of the innocent. As with Pearl Harbor the actual act was not initiated nor coordinated by the President and the obvious war cabinet he put in place on gaining office, but it was allowed to happen and very, very likely facilitated and enhanced for maximum effects. Evil can lurk behind the friendliest of faces and the most affable of public personalities, this is how evil fools us all.
An imperium requires a world where people are dumb and servile like sheep. Empires seek to destroy the very structures, such as nation-states, which support meaningful life and human progress. The “powers-that-be” deliberately target these nation-states (independent countries), and their economies – to destroy the nations, and thereby maintaining their own imperious power. This is by design.
==TransEvolution: The Coming Age of Human Deconstruction (Estulin, Daniel)
The approach this nation has taken to waging war since Vietnam (absolving the people from meaningful involvement), along with the way it organizes its army (relying on professionals), has altered the relationship between the military and society in ways that too few Americans seem willing to acknowledge
From pulpit and podium, at concerts and sporting events, expressions of warmth and affection shower down on the troops. Yet when those wielding power in Washington subject soldiers to serial abuse, Americans acquiesce. When the state heedlessly and callously exploits those same troops, the people avert their gaze. Maintaining a pretense of caring about soldiers, state and society actually collaborate in betraying them.
Speaking just prior to midnight on December 31, 1999, President Bill Clinton surveyed the century just ending and identified its central theme as “the triumph of freedom and free people.” To this “great story,” Clinton told his listeners, the United States had made a pivotal contribution. Contemplating the future, he glimpsed even better days ahead—“the triumph of freedom wisely used.” All that was needed to secure that triumph was for Americans to exploit and export “the economic benefits of globalization, the political benefits of democracy and human rights, [and] the educational and health benefits of all things modern.” At the dawning of the new millennium, he concluded confidently, “the sun will always rise on America as long as each new generation lights the fire of freedom.”1
“Can anybody think of another time in history when a comparable group of young people was asked to be at once so brave, fierce and relentless, while also being so sympathetic, creative and forbearing?”
“If anybody is wondering: Where are the young idealists? Where are the people willing to devote themselves to causes larger than themselves? They are in uniform in Iraq.”
Soon after Brooks published this paean to the American soldier, word of depraved and despicable acts at Abu Ghraib prison began to surface.
Writing in 1917, soon after the United States had entered World War I, the essayist Randolph Bourne identified the issue with devastating precision. For a particular category of intellectuals, entranced by the aphrodisiac of power, independence is a pose willingly abandoned when the prospect of “relevance” beckons. Faced with an opportunity to “matter,” they rush to conform. For a considerable number of American intellectuals, 9/11 offered just such an opportunity.
Bourne took out after intellectuals who did. “Only in a world where irony was dead,” he wrote, “could an intellectual class enter war at the head of such illiberal cohorts in the avowed cause of world-liberalism and world-democracy.”
“In a time of faith,” Bourne wryly observed, “skepticism is the most intolerable of all insults.”
==Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country (American Empire Project) (Bacevich, Andrew J.)
In most civilizations the long-drawn agony of the Age of Conflict finally ends in a new period, the Age of the Universal Empire. As a result of the imperialist wars of the Age of Conflict, the number of political units in the civilization are reduced by conquest.
It is not yet clear whether Western Civilization will continue along the path marked by so many earlier civilizations, or whether it will be able to reorganize itself sufficiently to enter upon a new, fourth, Age of Expansion. If the former occurs, this Age of Conflict will undoubtedly continue with the fourfold characteristics of class struggle, war, irrationality, and declining progress. In this case, we shall undoubtedly get a Universal Empire in which the United States will rule most of Western Civilization. This will be followed, as in other civilizations, by a period of decay and ultimately, as the civilization grows weaker, by invasions and the total destruction of Western culture.
A “country made by war,” to cite the title of a popular account of U.S. military history, the United States in our own day is fast becoming a country undone by war.
==Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (Quigley, Carroll)
Whenever a hidden agenda is about to be implemented there is always the period when the hidden has to break the surface for the final push into physical reality.
==The Biggest Secret: The book that will change the World (Icke, David)
The effect of propaganda on the propagandists themselves is regularly underrated. As those with experience of politics know, it is often greater on those who propound it than on the public which receives it. The messengers become prisoners of their own propaganda. After a long period of proclaiming some danger they can easily convince themselves of its reality.
==America and the Imperialism of Ignorance: US Foreign Policy Since 1945 (Alexander, Andrew)
The United States has pursued empire since early in its history, but it was the Soviet collapse in 1991 that enabled Washington to see the entire world as its oyster.
The United States has pursued empire since early in its history, but it was the Soviet collapse in 1991 that enabled Washington to see the entire world as its oyster.The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in the rise of the neoconservatives to power and influence in the US government. The neoconservatives have interpreted the Soviet collapse as History’s choice of “American democratic capitalism” as the New World Order.Chosen by History as the exceptional and indispensable country, Washington claims the right and the responsibility to impose its hegemony on the world. Neoconservatives regard their agenda to be too important to be constrained by domestic and international law or by the interests of other countries.
Indeed, as the Unipower, Washington is required by the neoconservative doctrine to prevent the rise of other countries that could constrain American power.Paul Wolfowitz, a leading neoconservative, penned the Wolfowitz Doctrine shortly after the Soviet collapse. This doctrine is the basis of US foreign and military policy. The doctrine states: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”