( Deze blog is meer een aantekening. Ik ben er nog niet zo diep in gedoken. Maar het fenomeen is zeker van belang, en is ook erg onderbelicht. Ik denk dat alleen MacCarthy bekend is bij het publiek, en dan nog als een looser die wellicht paranoide was. )
Hoe de joodse Belangen, de bankiers en de Big Corporations begin jaren 50 probeerden om Amerika in de richting van collectivisme en communisme te sturen.
De joodse intellectuelen en kunstenaars werden vooral aangevallen door MacCarthy.
De in de overheid geinfiltreerde communisten werden doro Beaty beschreven.
En de Big Corporations werden in de Rees Committee onderzocht.
Ik denk dat de diverse groepen zo hun eigen motieven en dromen hadden om collectiviteit en communisme na te streven.
Wij kennen allemaal het verhaal van senator MacCarthy: de fanatieke communisten-jager uit het begin van de jaren 50.
Maar er waren andere stromingen die ons duidelijk maken dat het communisme een populaire stroming was in de VS:
John Beatty: The Iron Curtain Over America
In 1951 schreef John Beaty een klein boekje waarin hij beschreef dat joodse Amerikanen probeerden om hun land communistisch te maken. ( Download)
Generaal MacArthur zei in 1952: "Onze policy ias zo gunstig voor het communisme dat lijkt alsof Het Kremlin onze policy bepaalt."
The Reese Committee on tax-exempt foundations.
Volgens Wikipedia bleek uit het onderzoek dat de gelden van de allerrijksten belasting-vrij konden worden gebruikt om stromingen te steunen die van Amerika een soort communistisch land zouden maken: een Olichargische Collectivistische staat.
Die term komt uit het boek 1984, en in dat boek speelt een ander boek een rol (een fictief boek dus,zonder titel, geschreven door Emmanuel Goldstine ( fictief dus) en deze Goldstein is criticus van het heersende systeem in Oceania.
( Als ik het goed heb begrepen. JV)
Reese committee: Wiki.
Verklaring van Norman Dodd: Wiki Norman Dodd interview door E Griffin in 1982, toen hij al erg oud was: YouTube.
Edward Griffin vat de Dodd verklaring als volgt samen: De 1% die de grote bedrijven in handen hadden in de VS wilden de hele wereld als een soort collectief gaan controleren, achter de schermen. Inclusief Rusland.
Op min. 19: De Foundations zeggen dat ze in opdracht van het Witte Huis handelen en proberen tot een samensmelting met de USSR te komen.
Op min. 26: In de notulen van de Foundations staat : ( in 1909) "Hoe kun je een samenleving het best van karakter verandewren? Antwoord: Met een oorlog.
Dan vraagt men zich af: Hoe kunnen we oorlog veroorozaken ?
Het Reese Committee werd in opspraak gebracht, en Dodd's onderzoek werd als anti-semitisch opzij geschoven. ( als ik het goed heb onthouden.)
--
Het Reese Committee onderzoek komt ook ter sprake in deze video van een gesprek tussen 2 'oudjes' die een radio-intervieuw houden.
Zij is mevr. Charlotte Iserbait, bekend van het boek 'The dumbing down of America'. Video. (uit 2014)
In de eerste minuten hoor je al dat Dr. Stan Monteith (Radio in Santa Cruz) in feite zegt dat de usual suspects àlle gremia hebben geinfiltreerd en controleren.
NB: Charlotte en Stanly zien het communisme zoals het in Rusland was, en we moeten dat niet verwarrenmet het huidige Putin Rusland. ( JV)
---==
Dit is wellicht de volste uitleg en de beste uitleg van de Reese Committee zaak:
If you want to find out how the spreading of Socialism and Communism happened in America, it started way back in the 1920's, possibly earlier. Goes into the big foundations and how they have helped to corrupt science, schools, the government and more. I had heard about the Reece commission, but wow! I'm not finished reading it, but I'm surprised it was left to go until it got to this point. Mr. Wormser did a great job with the documents. It's a who's who of corruption, from Rockefellar, Carnigie and the Ford foundations to name a few. If you want to find out why and how we got here, this is the book. Great for both conservatives and progressives.
This is a good follow up to the Norman Dodd Interviews on youtube. Wormser relays a lot of good information, but attempts to mollify the sharp conclusions of Norman Dodd. Still a must have for the library on the egregious workings of the tax exempt Foundations.
Another reason why America has been sliding left for so many years. Appalled to learn how tax-exempt foundations take public funds with no accountability for indoctrination and subversion. Is the damage beyond repair?
This book does a great job of revealing that many foundations you've been led to believe are benevolent and impartial are actually deliberately used to reinforce the elitist power structure. It outlines the methods the ruling elite use foundations for; to covertly influence/dominate public policy and to recruit new generations of loyal elites to continue their work. After seeing the true nature of foundations I no longer trust any of them without researching them first. Another related book is Age of Propaganda which reveals many of the techniques used by the system to control the way you think and behave. The word propaganda is commonly only associated with military campaigns; it is usually called advertising or news in day-to-day society.
Een week geleden vertelde Netanyahu heel trots (terecht) dat Israel's omzet in IT was verdubbeld in 3 jaar tijd ! Ze zijn nu tweede in de wereld, iets achter de VS. Van de 7 grootste bedrijven ter wereld zijn er 7 IT bedrijven. En ieder van die 7 heeft een belangrijke Research Afdeling in Israel !
Video, 14 minuten.
Netanyahu: van 0.30 tot 1.40 minuut.
en van : 3.30 tot miuut 5.
Netanyahu spreekt zijn Cyber soldaten toe :
= Er zijn 300 IT bedrijven in Israel.
= Nu zijn Kleine landen in feite Grote landen.
(Hij zegt: financieel groot, ik lees: Machtig. )
= Onze NSA (Internet Security en spionage) , die we Unit 8200 noemen, is behoorlijk groot. De VS heeft 42 maal zoveel inwoners als Israel, maar de NSA is niet eens 10 maal zo groot als Unit 8200. ( Groter dan Engeland )
Rick Wiles:
"Israel is going to guard the internet? Oh dear Lord ! "
"We gaan naar een cash-loze wereld, en Israel zal ons digitale geld gaan bewaken? De money-changers zijn terug."
Al in een artikel in 2017 schreef The Jerusalem Post dat Israel in feite wordt gevreesd ( 'respected' schrijven ze uiteraard.) door Rusland en China. Hier dat artikel: ( foto's weg gelaten. gele en rode markering van JV.)
ISRAEL AND THE UNEXPECTED NEW WORLD ORDER
Geographically, Israel is just
off-center. Why then is it treated with such respect, especially by the likes
of Russia and China?
In the new and surprising economic world
order, Israel could gain a degree of wealth not seen since the days of King
Solomon.
For the Western world, strong new alliances between certain non-Western
countries constitute something of a mystery. But while the West ( America. JV)is distracted
by political uprisings and remains enamored with the idea of its own “manifest
destiny,” a new world order is emerging, dominated by up-and-coming global
superpowers like Russia, China and India.
Over the past eight years, many
unexpected diplomatic changes have occurred. The Islamic Republic of Iran has
formed a partnership with the “infidel” nation of Russia. Less than two years
ago, Russia moved into Syria, and shows no signs of leaving. And Syria, despite
its own problem with radical Islam, has strengthened bonds with Iran’s
fundamentalist regime.
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has taunted Western Europe, preferring
to pander to Moscow and Beijing. And China, though physically distant, has
subtly installed troops in Syria.
China’s fleets are also appearing in joint exercises with Iran in the Persian
Gulf and Russia in the Mediterranean.
As for Israel, how is it that this small country, a mere sliver of land, is
accorded such deference? The world’s only Jewish state is making deals with
Turkey, Russia and China, in spite of their alliances with Iran, which is
dedicated to Israel’s annihilation. Why is Jerusalem pursuing such deals? And,
ambivalent at best about Israel, why are these nations agreeing to them? A new
world order, difficult for the West to recognize, answers many of these
questions.
About six months after Barack Obama began his first term as US president, a new
partnership was born in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg.
On June 16, 2009, leaders from Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) met to
discuss ways to impact the global financial situation “to reflect changes in
the world economy.”
Reuters noted at the time that “BRIC nations account for 15 percent of the
$60.7 trillion global economy, but Goldman Sachs predicts that in 20 years
time, the four countries could together dwarf the G7 and China’s economy will
overtake the United States in total size.”
Indeed, eight years later, those four nations – along with the addition of
South Africa, hence BRICS – are rapidly moving toward a position of global
economic dominance.
Economic growth is skyrocketing, especially in China and India. In comparison,
GDP growth in the US and the UK already look like what Reuters predicted.
BRICS has also established its own international bank, called NDB. Under the
auspices of the BRICS member states, its purpose is to finance infrastructure
projects inside those member states.
China has started another initiative that, according to global economist
Jean-Pierre Lehmann, could bring about “the most dramatic transformation of the
world economy since the Industrial Revolution.”
The project is called the Belt and Road Initiative. Unveiled only four years
ago, it will take an estimated $7.5 trillion to develop. But the benefit is
nothing less than an explosion of prosperity, not just for participating
countries but for the whole world. No less than 75 nations have joined the Silk
Road Chamber of International Commerce.
Members include all the Eastern Goliaths: China, Russia and India. For those
keeping an eye on Israel, other notable members along with the Jewish state
include Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar and the Palestinian
Territories.
Because China’s most important land “road” runs straight through the countries
in this region. A second major route is noted below.
The land road begins in the Chinese city of Xi’an. Its path runs directly
through Tehran. Moving into Iraq, it then either goes directly into Turkey or
through Syria to both Turkey and the Mediterranean.
If China’s land road goes through Syria, as Tehran hopes it will, it will
connect at the Mediterranean for shipping exports to Europe, Africa, North
America and South America.
Russia is guarding the Mediterranean with a fully developed and growing
seaport. Iran may be connected to the western sea, but Russia is determined to
hold its coastal key.
Israel is only miles south of the China land road, and only miles north of its
proposed sea road.
The latter, sometimes called the Maritime Road, connects China with Southeast
Asia, India, East Africa and, upwards through the Suez Canal, Yemen, Saudi
Arabia and Egypt.
Geographically, Israel is just off-center. Why then is it treated with such
respect, especially by the likes of Russia and China? Already, Israel is
getting under the skin of other members in the Silk Road International Chamber
of Commerce. Its huge gas and oil fields just offshore in the Mediterranean are
on the verge of piping fuel directly to Europe, cutting into Russia’s market.
Maneuvering its way into the transport of goods via China’s land and sea roads,
Israel is floating the idea of an alternate shipping route to Egypt’s costly
Suez Canal. It will be cheaper and faster, Israel argues, to deliver goods to
Eilat, transfer them to a highspeed train that goes to Ashdod on the
Mediterranean, and from there ship goods throughout the world. In response,
Cairo is already calling foul.
Most importantly, Israel is positioned to guard the world’s Internet.
Everything today is traded, controlled and administered online. And Israel is
emerging as the world’s number one guardian of the worldwide web. That means,
regardless of being a few miles offtrack from China’s Land and Maritime Roads,
it is positioned to be the center of both belts.
Economists worry that China’s ambition could trigger a global economic
collapse; a currency collapse, specifically. Maybe BRICS and One Belt One Road
don’t care. A global currency collapse might be seen as a way to wipe the slate
clean of nation-based currencies, especially the US dollar, and establish an
international one: like Bitcoin, perhaps.
If Bitcoin is the model for a new Internet-based global currency, Israel is
likely to be its guardian too, protecting that currency from hackers around the
world.
As chief of security for the world’s information and currency, and with energy
independence, Israel stands to gain substantial wealth.
It is a position that explains the willingness of Russia and China to negotiate
with Israel today; it is also a position that will invoke resentment tomorrow.
Feeding that resentment will be the small matter of Iran’s determination to
annihilate the Jewish state. Inasmuch as it becomes Israel’s neighbor in Syria
and Lebanon (as, arguably, it already has), Tehran’s ambition to destroy Israel
becomes all but irresistible.
For the sake of trade, China does not want this war. For the same reason,
neither does Russia.
Perhaps someone will come along and, strictly for the sake of business, bring
peace to the Middle East. But if such a treaty failed, or if for any reason
Israel becomes an economic threat to BRICS and One Belt One Road, it is
feasible that Russia will descend, China will march and Tehran will launch.
Why? To extract the sliver-sized country, to unblock the flow of commerce, and
to deal with “the Jewish problem” once and for all.
Brian Schrauger is the editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Journal and its daily
Chaim Report, an aggregation of Israel-related headlines from around the world.
His email is Brian@JerusalemJournal.net.
Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and
upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>
Ruim 18 maanden geleden al beschreef Thierry Meyssan de Amerikaanse 'aanval' op Venezuela. Hij zag toen al aankomen wat er vandaag gebeurt.
Zulke schrijvers verdienen extra aandacht, ook al blijft de bewering van Meyssan bijkans ongeloofwaardig.
Volgens Meyssan is er een Amerikaans Plan om de helft van de wereld half te vernietigen. Letterlijk: landen tot Chaos te brengen.
Ze zijn begonnen in het Midden Oosten.
En inderdaad: Chaos is het enige resultaat van al die inmenging.
Nu begint met in het Caribbisch gebied. Met Venezuela. Maar het hele gebied staat op het programma om tot Chaos te worden gereduceerd..
Strategie/ doel: De mensen hebben dan hun handen vol met te proberen te overleven, en de VS kan vrijelijk over de grondstoffen in die landen beschikken.
Hieronder het eerste deel van Meyssan's artikel. In blog 906 deel 2.
DIVERGENT INTERPRETATIONS IN THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST CAMP – PART 1
The anti-imperialist camp: splintered in thought
by Thierry Meyssan
In 2011 when his country was subject to a jihadist siege, President Bashar el-Assad’s reaction was against the norm: rather than strengthening the powers of his security services, he cut them back. Six years on, his country is in the process of emerging victorious, in the most important war since Vietnam. This same type of aggression is unfolding in Latin America. Yet here, it is sparking off a far more classic response. In this article, Thierry Meyssan distinguishes the analysis and strategy of President Assad on the one hand and Maduro and Morales on the other. His aim is not to place these leaders in competition, but rather to call upon each of them to remove themselves from political catechisms and to pay due attention to the lessons learnt from the most recent wars.
In May 2017, Thierry Meyssan appeared on Russia Today and explained where the South American elites were going wrong in their fight against US imperialism. He insisted that there has been a sea-change in the way the US now wages armed conflicts and we now need to radically rethink how we should defend our homeland.
The operation to destabilize Venezuela continues. The first phase: violent gangs demonstrating against the government killed passers by, as if citizenship created no bonds between them. The second phase: the major food suppliers organized food shortages in the supermarkets. Then some members of the forces attacked several ministers, called for a rebellion and now have retreated into hiding.
Of course the international press never ceases to hold the “regime” responsible for the deaths of demonstrators. Yet it is a fact that a number of videos testify that these demonstrators were deliberately assassinated by demonstrators themselves. No regard is paid to this and on the basis of this false information, the press then proceeds to qualify Nicolas Maduro as a “dictator” just as it did six years ago with respect to Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar el-Assad.
The United States has used the Organization of American States (the OAS) as an arm against President Maduro just like it once used the Arab League against President al-Assad. Caracas, not expecting to be excluded from the Organization, denounced this method and left of its own accord.
Maduro’s government has however two failures on its balance sheet: the vast majority of its voters did not go to the polling stations for the legislative elections of 2015, allowing the opposition to sweep a majority in Parliament. it was caught out by the crisis of food products, even though the same thing had been organized in the past in Chile against Allende and in Venezuela against Chávez. It required several weeks to put in place new circuits to provide food.
In all likelihood, the conflict that begins in Venezuela will not be held back by its borders. It will ooze out, embracing the entire North West of the South American continent and the Caribbean.
An additional step has been taken with military preparations against Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador following Mexico, Colombia and British Guyana. The team responsible for co-ordinating these measures is from the former Office of Global Democracy Strategy. This was a unit established by President Bill Clinton, then continued by Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz. Mike Pompeo, the current director of the CIA, has confirmed that this unit exists. This has led to rumours in the press, followed up by President Trump, of a US military option.
To save his country, President Maduro’s team has refused to follow the example of President al-Assad. Maduro’s team thinks that there is no real comparison between what is happening in Venezuela and Syria. The United States, the principal capitalist power, would set off to Venezuela to steal its oil, according to a plan that has been repeatedly played out in the past on three continents. This point of view was given further weight by a speech that Evo Morales, Bolivia’s President, recently delivered.
Let us recall that in 2003 and 2011, President Saddam Hussein, the Guide Muammar Gaddafi and a number of President Assad’s advisors reasoned similarly. They thought that the US would attack the following states in succession: Afghanistan and Iraq, then Tunisia, Egypt and Libya and Syria. And why? For the sole reason of bringing about the collapse of regimes that were resisting its imperialism and controlling hydrocarbon resources in an expanded Middle East. A number of anti-imperialist authors cling to this analysis today. So for example, they use it to try to explain the war against Syria by reference to the interruption of the Qatari gas pipeline project.
Now, this line of thinking is turning out to be false. The US is not looking to reverse progressive governments (Libya and Syria), nor to steal the region’s oil and gas. Its intent is to decimate States, to send people of these countries back to a pre-historic time where “man did not love his neighbour as God loved him but would pounce like a wolf upon his neighbour” [Translator’s note: the literal translation of the French original is: “man was a wolf for man”].
Has toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and the regime of Gaddafi brought peace back to these states? No! Wars have continued even though “government of occupation” has been set up in Iraq, then a government composed of other governments in the region including those who collaborated with the imperialists opposed to national independence. Wars are still being waged. This surely evidences that Washington and London had no intention of toppling these regimes nor defending democracy. These were transparent covers for their true intentions which were to eliminate the people in these states. It is a basic observation that rocks our understanding of contemporary imperialism.
This strategy, radically new, was taught by Thomas P. M. Barnett following 11-September 2001. It was publicly revealed and exposed in March 2003 – that is, just before the war against Iraq— in an article in Esquire, then in the eponym book, The Pentagon’s New Map. However, such a strategy appears so cruel in design, that no one imagined it could be implemented.
Imperialism seeks to divide the world in two. One part will be a stable area which profits from the system while in the other part a terrifying chaos will reign. This other will be a zone, where all thought of resisting has been wiped it; where every thought is fixated on surviving; an area where the multinationals can extract raw materials which they need without any duty to account to anyone.
According to this map, taken from one of Thomas P. M. Barnett’s power point slides, presented at a conference held at the Pentagon in 2003, every state in the pink zone must be destroyed. This project has nothing to with the struggle between classes at the national level nor with exploiting natural resources. Once they are done with the expanded Middle East, the US strategists are preparing to reduce the North West of Latin America to ruins.
Since the eighteenth century and the British Civil War, Western development has been triggered by its attempt to do all it can to avoid chaos. Thomas Hobbes taught us to support the thinking of the State rather than risk experiencing this torment for another time. The notion of chaos only returned to us with Leo Strauss, after the Second World War. This philosopher, who has personally trained a number of personalities within the Pentagon, intended to build a new form of power by plunging part of the world into hell.
Jihadism inflicted onto an expanded Middle East has shown us what is chaos.
While President Assad reacted as anticipated to the events of Deraa (March – April 2011), by sending his army to quell the jihadists of the Mosque al-Omari, he was the first to understand what was happening. Far from increasing the powers of the forces to maintain order to repress the aggression sourced from abroad, he equipped his people with the means to defend their homeland.
First: he lifted the state of emergency, dissolved the special courts, freed the Internet communications and forbid the armed forces to use their arms if to do so would endanger the lives of innocent civilians.
When Assad took these decisions he was clearly not going with the flow. And these decisions were ladened with consequences. For example, at the time of the attack of a military convoy at Banias, soldiers held off using their weapons in self-defence; they preferred to be mutilated by the bombs of their attackers and occasionally die, rather than to fire, risking injuring inhabitants that were looking at them being massacred without intervening.
Like many at this time, I thought that the President was too weak and his troops too loyal; that Syria was going to go down. However six years on, Bashar el-Assad and the Syrian armed forces met the challenge. While at the beginning the soldiers have struggled alone against foreign aggression, gradually, every citizen came on board, to defend the country.
Those who were not able to or who did not want to resist, went into exile. It is clearly the case that the Syrian people have greatly suffered. That said, Syria is the only State in the entire world, since the Vietnam War, to have resisted until imperialism tires itself out and surrenders.
Second: faced with this invasion of a multitude of jihadists, from Muslim populations all over the world – Morocco to China, President Assad took the decision to abandon part of his territory to save his people.
The Syrian Arab Army confined itself to the “useful Syria”, that is, to the cities. It abandoned the countryside and the deserts to the attackers. Damascus kept supervising, uninterruptedly, the provision of food to every region under its control. Contrary to an idea accepted by the West as common knowledge, the only areas where there is famine are those areas under Jihadi control and in the cities that it has besieged; the “ foreign rebels” (forgive this oxymoron), supplied by “humanitarian” associations, use the distribution of food packages as a means of making starving populations submit to them.
The Syria people have seen for themselves how the Republic alone assumed the role of feeding them and protecting them. The Muslim Brotherhood and their jihadists played no part.
Third: In a speech delivered on 12 December 2012, President Assad traced, how he intended to remake political unity in his country. Of special mention, he pointed out the need to draft a new constitution and to submit it to adoption by a qualified majority of his people then to proceed to democratically elect all institutional officials, including of course, the President.
At that time, the Westerners mocked the claim of President Assad to call elections when the war was at its bloodiest. Today, all diplomats involved in resolving this conflict including the UN, support Assad’s plan.
While Jihadi commandos were freely roaming the entire country, notably Damascus, and were murdering politicians even invading their homes where their families were, to do so, President Assad has encouraged dialogue with nationals who oppose him. He guaranteed the security of the liberal Hassan el-Nouri and the Marxist Maher el-Hajjar so that they too, might risk presenting themselves at the presidential elections in June 2014. Despite an appeal to boycott issued by the Muslim Brotherhood and Western governments, despite jihadi terror, despite the fact that millions of citizens were exiled abroad, voter turn out (of those present) was 73.42 %.
In the same way, from the beginning of the war, he created a ministry for National Reconciliation, something never seen before in a country where war is going on. Assad handed the ministry over to Ali Haidar, the President of PSNS, an allied party. He negotiated and concluded thousands of agreements taking into account the amnesty of citizens who had taken arms against the Republic and their integration in the Syrian Arab Army.
During this war, President Assad has never used force against his own people. This is so, despite the allegations of those who freely accuse him of widespread torture. So, let me be clear: he has never set up mass executions nor mandatory conscriptions. It is always possible for a young man to avoid his military obligations. Administrative procedures allow any male citizen to evade national service if he does not desire to defend his country with weapons in hand. Only the exiled who have not had the occasion to pursue these procedures may find themselves in violation of these laws.
For six years, President Assad has not stopped on the one hand, making an appeal to his people, asking them to thrust upon him obligations, and on the other hand, trying to feed them and to protect them, as far as he is able. He has always assumed the risk of giving before receiving. That is why today, he has won the confidence of his people, and can count on their active support.
South American elites are wrong to pursue the fight of the previous decades for a fairer distribution of their wealth. The battle which they must focus is no longer one where the majority of the people and small class of privileged individuals are on opposite sides.
The choice put to the peoples of the expanded Middle East and to the people of South America is this: aut defendendum vobis patriam est aut morendum vobis est (you must either defend your homeland or die). It is this question that they will have to respond to.
The facts prove it: the number one priority of imperialism today is no longer plundering natural resources. Imperialism, unscrupulous, dominates the world. Yet now its vision has expanded to wiping out people and to destroying the societies in the regions where it is already exploiting resources.
In this iron era, the Assad strategy alone allows us to stand tall and free
In blog 903 ziet U de USA-versie van het Yinon Plan. Maar de Neocons hadden een nòg groter plan: de hele wereld controleren door de niet-onderdanige landen gewoonweg kapot te maken. Meyssan levewrt namen en functies en kaarten. Of alles klopt kan ik verder niet controleren. Maar de hele Westers Pers beweert dat Putin heeft gezegd dat hij ' Het oude grote Rusland weer wil herstellen', en dus de in 1992 verloren sateliet-landen weer wil terug veroveren. De beschikbare tekst toont duidelijk aan dat Putin dit NIET heeft gezegd NOCH kan hebben bedoeld. Dan is het 'bewijs' van Meyssan vele malen beter onderbouwd. Hier de originele site.
------------------------- DIVERGENT INTERPRETATIONS IN THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST CAMP – PART 2
The US military project for the world
by Thierry Meyssan
While all experts agree that the events in Venezuela are following the same model as those in Syria, some writers have contested the article by Thierry Meyssan which highlights their differences from the interpretation in the anti-imperialist camp. Here, our author responds. This is not a quarrel between specialists, but an important debate about the historic change we are experiencing since 11 September 2001, and which is influencing all our lives.
In the first part of this article, I pointed out the fact that currently, President Bachar el-Assad is the only personality who has adapted to the new « grand US strategy » - all the others continue to think as if the present conflicts were simply a continuation of those we have been experiencing since the end of the Second World War. They persist in interpreting these events as tentatives by the United States to hog natural ressources for themselves by organising the overthrow of the pertinent governments.
As I intend to demonstrate, I believe that they are wrong, and that their error could hasten humanity down the road to hell.
US strategic thought
For the last 70 years, the obsession of US strategists has not been to defend their people, but to maintain their military superiority over the rest of the world. During the decade between the dissolution of the USSR and the terrorist attacks of 9/11, they searched for ways to intimidate those who resisted them.
Harlan K. Ullman developed the idea of terrorising populations by dealing them a horrifying blow to the head (Shock and awe) [1]. This was the idea behind the use of the atomic bomb against the Japanese and the bombing of Baghdad with a storm of cruise missiles.
The Straussians (meaning the disciples of philosopher Leo Strauss) dreamed of waging and winning several wars at once (Full-spectrum dominance). This led to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, placed under a common command [2].
Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski suggested reorganising the armies in order to facilitate the treament and sharing of a wealth of data simultaneously. In this way, robots would one day be able to indicate the best tactics instantaneously [3]. As we shall see, the major reforms he initiated were soon to produce poisonous fruit.
US neo-imperialist thought
These ideas and fantasies first of all led President Bush and the Navy to organise the world’s most wide-ranging network for international kidnapping and torture, which created 80,000 victims. Then President Obama set up an assassination programme mainly using drones, but also commandos, which operates in 80 countries, and enjoys an annual budget of 14 billion dollars [4].
As from 9/11, Admiral Cebrowski’s assistant, Thomas P. M. Barnett, has given numerous conferences at the Pentagon and in military academies in order to announce the shape of the new map of the world according to the Pentagon [5]. This project was made possible by the structural reforms of US armies – these reforms are the source of this new vision of the world. At first, it seemed so crazy that foreign observers too quickly considered it as one more piece of rhetoric aimed at striking fear into the people they wanted to dominate.
Barnett declared that in order to maintain their hegemony over the world, the United States would have to « settle for less », in other words, to divide the world in two. On one side, the stable states (the members of the G8 and their allies), on the other, the rest of the world, considered only as a simple reservoir of natural resources. Contrary to his predecessors, Barnett no longer considered access to these resources as vital for Washington, but claimed that they would only be accessible to the stable states by transit via the services of the US army. From now on, it was necessary to systematically destroy all state structures in the reservoir of resources, so that one day, no-one would be able to oppose the will of Washington, nor deal directly with the stable states.
During his State of the Union speech in January 1980, President Carter announced his doctrine - Washington considered that the supply of its economy with oil from the Gulf was a question of national security [6]. Following that, the Pentagon created CentCom in order to control the region. But today, Washington takes less oil from Iraq and Libya than it exploited before those wars – and it doesn’t care !
Destroying the state structures is to operate a plunge into chaos, a concept borrowed from Leo Strauss, but to which Barnett gives new meaning. For the Jewish philosopher, the Jewish people can no longer trust democracies after the failure of the Weimar Republic and the Shoah. The only way to protect itself from a new form of Nazism, is to establish its own world dictatorship – in the name of Good, of course. It would therefore be necessary to destroy certain resistant states, drag them into chaos and rebuild them according to different laws [7]. This is what Condoleezza Rice said during the first days of the 2006 war against Lebanon, when Israël still seemed victorious - « I do not see the point of diplomacy if it’s purpose is to return to the status quo ante between Israël and Lebanon. I think that would be a mistake. What we are seeing here, in a way, is the beginning, the contractions of the birth of a new Middle East, and whatever we do, we have to be sure that we are pushing towards the new Middle East and that we are not returning to the old ». On the contrary, for Barnett, not only the few resistant people should be forced into chaos, but all those who have not attained a certain standard of life - and once they are reduced to chaos, they must be kept there.
In fact, the influence of the Straussians has diminished at the Pentagon since the death of Andrew Marshall, who created the idea of the « pivot to Asia » [8].
One of the great differences between the thinking of Barnett and that of his predecessors is that war should not be waged against specific states for political reason, but against regions of the world because they are not integrated into the global economic system. Of course, we will start with one country or another, but we will favour contagion until everything is destroyed, just as we are seeing in the Greater Middle East. Today, tank warfare is raging in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt (Sinaï), Palestine, Lebanon (Ain al-Hilweh and Ras Baalbeck), Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia (Qatif), Bahreïn, Yemen, Turkey (Diyarbakır), and Afghanistan.
This is why Barnett’s neo-imperialist strategy will necessarily be based on elements of the rhetoric of Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, the « war of civilisations » [9]. Since it is impossible to justify our indifference to the fate of the people from the reservoir of natural resources, we can always persuade ourselves that our civilisations are incompatible.
According to this map, taken from one of Thomas P. M. Barnett’s power point slides, presented at a conference held at the Pentagon in 2003, every state in the pink zone must be destroyed. This project has nothing to with the struggle between classes at the national level nor with exploiting natural resources. Once they are done with the expanded Middle East, the US strategists are preparing to reduce the North West of Latin America to ruins.
The implementation of US neo-imperialism
This is precisely the policy which has been in operation since 9/11. None of the wars which were started have yet come to an end. For 16 years, on a daily basis, the living conditions of the Afghan people have become increasingly more terrible and more dangerous. The reconstruction of their state, which was touted to be planned on the model of Germany and Japan after the Second World War, has not yet begun. The presence of NATO troops has not improved the life of the Afghan people, but on the countrary, has made it worse. We are obliged to note the fact that it is today the cause of the problem. Despite the feel-good speeches on international aid, these troops are there only to deepen and maintain the chaos.
Never once, when NATO troops intervened, have the official reasons for the war been shown to be true - neither against Afghanistan (the responsibility of the Taliban in the attacks of 9/11), nor Iraq (President Hussein’s support for the 9/11 terrorists and the preparation of weapons of mass destruction to attack the USA), nor Libya (the bombing of its own people by the army), nor in Syria (the dictatorship of President Assad and the Alaouite cult). And never once has the overthrow of a government ever put an end to these wars. They all continue without interruption, no matter who is in power.
The « Arab Springs », which were born of an idea from MI6 and directly inspired by the « Arab Revolt of 1916 » and the exploits of Lawrence of Arabia, were included in the same US strategy. Tunisia has become ungovernable. Luckily, Egypt was taken back by its army and is today making efforts to heal. Libya has become a battlefield, not since the Security Council resolution aimed at protecting the population, but since the assassination of Mouamar Kadhafi and the victory of NATO. Syria is an exception, because the state never fell into the hanads of the Muslim Brotherhood, which prevented them from dragging the country into chaos. But numerous jihadist groups, born of the Brotherhood, have controlled – and still control – parts of the territory, where they have indeed sown chaos. Neither the Daesh Caliphate, nor Idleb under Al-Qaïda, are states where Islam may flourish, but zones of terror without schools or hospitals.
It is probable that, thanks to its people, its army and its Russian, Lebanese and Iranian allies, Syria will manage to escape the destiny planned for it by Washington, but the Greater Near East will continue to burn until the people there understand their enemies’ plans for them. We now see that the same process of destruction has begun in the North-West of Latin America. The Western medias speak with disdain about the troubles in Venezuela, but the war that is beginning there will not be limited to that country – it will spread throughout the whole region, although the economic and political conditions of the states which compose it are very different.
The limits of US neo-imperialism
The US strategists like to compare their power to that of the Roman Empire. But that empire brought security and opulence to the peoples they conquered and integrated. It built monuments and rationalised their societies. On the contrary, US neo-imperialism does not intend to offer anything to the people of the stable states, nor to the people of the reservoirs of natural resources. It plans to racket the former and to destroy the social connections which bind the latter together. Above all, it does not want to exterminate the people of the reservoirs, but needs for them to suffer so that the chaos in which they live will prevent the stable states from going to them for natural ressources without the protection of the US armies.
Until now, the imperialist project ran on the principle that « you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs ». It admitted that it had committed collateral massacres in order to extend its domination. From now on, it is planning generalised massacres in order to impose its authority - definitively.
US neo-imperialism supposes that the other states of the G8 and their allies will agree to allow their overseas interests to be « protected » by US armies. That should pose no problem with the European Union, which has already been emasculated for a long time, but will have to be negotiated with the United Kingdom, and will be impossible with Russia and China.
Recalling its « special relationship » with Washington, London has already asked to be associated with the US project for governing the world. That was the point of Theresa May’s visit to the United States in January 2017, but she has so far received no answer [10].
Apart from that, it is inconceivable that the US armies will ensure the security of the « Silk Roads » as they do today with their British opposite numbers for the sea and air routes. Similarly, it is unthinkable for them to force Russia to genuflect, which has just been excluded from the G8 because of its engagement in Syria and Crimea.
[7] Certain specialists of the political thinking of Leo Strauss interpret this in a completely different way. As far as I am concerned, I am not interested in what the philosopher thought, but what is being said by those who, rightly or wrongly, speak to the Pentagon in his name. Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, Shadia B. Drury, Palgrave Macmillan, 1988. Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire, Anne Norton, Yale University Press, 2005. Leo Strauss and the conservative movement in America : a critical appraisal, Paul Edward Gottfried, Cambridge University Press, 2011. Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians Against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers, Peter Minowitz, Lexington Books, 2016.
[8] The Last Warrior: Andrew Marshall and the Shaping of Modern American Defense Strategy, Chapter 9, Andrew F. Krepinevich & Barry D. Watts, Basic Books, 2015.
[9] « The Clash of Civilizations ? » & « The West Unique, Not Universal », Foreign Affairs, 1993 & 1996 ; The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Samuel Huntington, Simon & Schuster, 1996.
«