Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on October 8, 2014
Head of Pentagon and C.I.A. Says Brace for 30 Year War with ISIS
Leon Panetta is pretty much the epitome of a status quo insider…
“I vividly recall how, in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s killing, Obama partisans triumphantly declared that this would finally usher in the winding down of the War on Terror. On one superficial level, that view was understandable: it made sense if one assumes that the U.S. has been waging this war for its stated reasons and that it hopes to vanquish The Enemy and end the war.
But that is not, and never was, the purpose of the War on Terror. It was designed from the start to be endless.”
– Glenn Greenwald, in his latest piece for the Intercept
Leon Panetta is pretty much the epitome of a status quo insider. Someone, who due to his influence and mainstream veneer of respectability, is capable of inflicting an almost inconceivable amount of damage to freedom and prosperity in America. In fact, you could say that Mr. Panetta is as responsible as almost anyone else for the banana republic laughing stock that this nation has been transformed into over the past several decades. Why? Because he served in top positions for several of America’s Presidents over that time.
He started out working for Richard Nixon, before switching parties and serving nine terms as a Democratic Congressman from California. He then served the Clinton Administration, including as Chief of Staff. Most recently, he was head of the Department of Defense and the CIA under Obama. This is an extremely political animal.
His ties run deepest with the Clintons, and while he criticizes Obama heavily in his new book, he excitedly proclaims that Hilary Clinton would be “great president,” and that “one thing about the Clintons is, they want to get it done.”
I’m sure they do, but get what done exactly. In the case of of Bill Clinton, it was dismantling Glass Steagall, and fully turning over the entire U.S. economy and public policy to financial oligarchs.
Think I am exaggerating? In a recent USA Today interview, we can clearly see exactly what “getting it done” would mean during a Hilary Clinton Presidency: Endless War.
USA Today reports that:
“I think we’re looking at kind of a 30-year war,” he says, one that will have to extend beyond Islamic State to include emerging threats in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere.
In the book’s final chapter, however, he writes that Obama’s “most conspicuous weakness” is “a frustrating reticence to engage his opponents and rally support for his cause.” Too often, he “relies on the logic of a law professor rather than the passion of a leader.” On occasion, he “avoids the battle, complains, and misses opportunities.”
Yeah, well Hitler was a pretty passionate leader.
Back to USA Today…
Panetta also argues that there is time for Obama to change tactics and recover — and that it is imperative he do so.
He makes a similar observation about Hillary Clinton, saying she would be a “great” president. “One thing about the Clintons is, they want to get it done,” he says, in words that draw an implicit contrast with Obama. “When it comes to being president of the United States, it’s one thing to talk a good game. It’s another thing to deliver, to make things happen.”
“He may have found himself again with regards to this ISIS crisis. I hope that’s the case. And if he’s willing to roll up his sleeves and engage with Congress in taking on some of these other issues, as I said I think he can establish a very strong legacy as president. I think these next 2 1/2 years will tell us an awful lot about what history has to say about the Obama administration.”
Think about that deeply for a moment. He thinks Obama may have“found himself again with regards to this ISIS crisis.” This is quite telling, since what has characterized Obama’s ISIS policy, is him launching an illegal war that makes George W. Bush look like a constitutional scholar. According to Panetta, that decision characterizes Obama “finding himself.” Naturally, what appeals to Panetta most about Hilary Clinton is her bloodlust for more war. Glenn Greenwald chimes in:
Leon Panetta, the long-time Democratic Party operative who served as Obama’s Defense Secretary and CIA Director, said this week of Obama’s new bombing campaign: “I think we’re looking at kind of a 30-year war.” Only in America are new 30-year wars spoken of so casually, the way other countries speak of weather changes. He added that the war “will have to extend beyond Islamic State to include emerging threats in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere.” And elsewhere: not just a new decades-long war with no temporal limits, but no geographic ones either. He criticized Obama – who has bombed 7 predominantly Muslim countries plus the Muslim minority in the Phillipines (almost double the number of countries Bush bombed) – for being insufficiently militaristic, despite the fact that Obama officials themselves have already instructed the public to think of The New War “in terms of years.”
Then we have Hillary Clinton (whom Panetta gushed would make a “great” president). At an event in Ottawa yesterday, she proclaimed that the fight against these “militants” will “be a long-term struggle” that should entail an “information war” as “well as an air war.” The new war, she said, is “essential” and the U.S. shies away from fighting it “at our peril.” Like Panetta (and most establishment Republicans), Clinton made clear in her book that virtually all of her disagreements with Obama’s foreign policy were the by-product of her view of Obama as insufficiently hawkish, militaristic and confrontational.
At this point, it is literally inconceivable to imagine the U.S. not at war. It would be shocking if that happened in our lifetime. U.S. officials are now all but openly saying this. “Endless War” is not dramatic rhetorical license but a precise description of America’s foreign policy.
Just yesterday, Bloomberg reported: “Led by Lockheed Martin Group (LTM), the biggest U.S. defense companies are trading at record prices as shareholders reap rewards from escalating military conflicts around the world.” Particularly exciting is that “investors see rising sales for makers of missiles, drones and other weapons as the U.S. hits Islamic State fighters in Syria and Iraq”; moreover, “the U.S. also is the biggest foreign military supplier to Israel, which waged a 50-day offensive against the Hamas Islamic movement in the Gaza Strip.” ISIS is using U.S.-made ammunition and weapons, which means U.S. weapons companies get to supply all sides of The New Endless War; can you blame investors for being so giddy?<
I vividly recall how, in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s killing, Obama partisans triumphantly declared that this would finally usher in the winding down of the War on Terror. On one superficial level, that view was understandable: it made sense if one assumes that the U.S. has been waging this war for its stated reasons and that it hopes to vanquish The Enemy and end the war.
But that is not, and never was, the purpose of the War on Terror. It was designed from the start to be endless. Both Bush and Obama officials have explicitly said that the war will last at least a generation. The nature of the “war,” and the theories that have accompanied it, is that it has no discernible enemy and no identifiable limits. More significantly, this “war” fuels itself, provides its own inexhaustible purpose, as it is precisely the policies justified in the name of Stopping Terrorism that actually ensure its spread (note how Panetta said the new U.S. war would have to include Libya, presumably to fight against those empowered by the last U.S. war there just 3 years ago).
As I outlined in my post, The American Public: A Tough Soldier or a Chicken Hawk Cowering in a Cubicle? Some Thoughts on ISIS Intervention, as long as the citizenry remains in a fetal position praying for the return of a middle-class lifestyle that is not coming back without concerted effort and struggle, it will continue to be slaughtered like sheep and milked like cows.
by Michael Krieger Liberty Blitzkrieg
47 Comments on "Head of Pentagon and C.I.A. Says Brace for 30 Year War with ISIS"
ghung on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 8:59 am
It’s getting ever more difficult to decide which psychopath to vote for. Some friends of ours finally sold out and are leaving for Ecuador in a few weeks. Me? I plan to stick it out right where I am, come hell or high water, remain active locally while our “leaders” continue to play whack-a-mole around the world, further insuring the bankruptcy of America. Indeed, a country that continues to provide and support morally bankrupt leadership deserves what it gets.
I would like to believe that things could have been different, but understand we were never in charge. We’re just mindless pyromaniac apes undergoing a rather bazaar evolution.
JuanP on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 9:09 am
There is no doubt in my mind that if I live thirty years more, I will experience as many years of war. I’ve lived most of my life in a country that was constantly fighting wars and before that I grew up in a military dictatorship, and I expect things to get significantly worse in a collapsing, overpopulated, overheated, depleted, polluted world with a changed climate.
Now that I’m done with the title and comments, I’ll read the article.
penury on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 9:18 am
As long as each elected pol is required to be a member of either R or D in order to be allowed to serve, the people will have no say in who they elect. Candidates are vetted by the party leaders before being allowed to run for office. Does anyone really think that a group of sociopaths are going to allow a person they abhor to run under their symbol? Apparently from my experience you get the non-members of the group sorted very quickly at the local level. Voters get a choice the psych from column A or the psych from column B.
JuanP on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 9:20 am
Ghung “It’s getting ever more difficult to decide which psychopath to vote for.”
I have never voted in any elections in my life because I don’t believe in democracy in today’s world. Democracy can only work well when the majority of the population is well educated, reasonable, and mentally healthy, and this is not the case in Uruguay or the USA today.
There is little doubt in my mind that unless some unforeseen event happens, Hillary Clinton will be the next president in the USA. In Uruguay there are presidential elections in a couple of months, and the race is close at this time
All these candidates, in both countries, are oligarchs; a former American First Lady, a former Uruguayan President, and the son and greatgrandson of two former Uruguayan Presidents. All of them are one percenters.
The only choice people have is what 1%er to choose. I’d rather go fishing.
bobinget on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 9:32 am
When polls are taken concerning President O’s popularity, few bother to ask, why?
I contend it’s liberals, like myself who became disillusioned are lumped in with Tea Party types.
I’m leaving for Nicaragua in four weeks. At least it will be warmer.
Davy on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 9:40 am
Let us see what a serious crisis of food insecurity and fuel shortages bring. I see martial law with a de facto military leader when things get really bad. I see the end of globalism and foreign wars by default. How are you going to fight foreign wars when you have the potential for civil war at home? 30 years is fantasy. We best be concentrating on 10 years or less.
JuanP on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 9:41 am
Bob, Are you moving permanently to Nicaragua or vacationing?
JuanP on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 9:58 am
Penury “As long as each elected pol is required to be a member of either R or D in order to be allowed to serve, the people will have no say in who they elect.”
My country, Uruguay had only two parties for more than 150 years and power went from one to the other until the late 1960s. Then a leftist movement started gaining popularity and the two traditional parties fought it. Some of those lefties became urban guerrilla fighters and started perpretating terrorist attacks on the civilian population. That led to a 13 military dictatorship that committed much worse attrocities than the guerrillas had, and for much longer.
Now, the President of Uruguay and his wife are both former communist guerrilla leaders and a slight majority of the population is leftist. The president’s party is Uruguay’s third party, created in the last decades as a third altenative, so we are no longer a bipartite democratic system.
This third party has been in power for a decade and is no better than the other two. I wouldn’t expect much of a third US party or candidate if I were you. The political situation in both countries is beyond hopeless, and the number of options only changed the mechanics of the process, not the outcome.
paulo1 on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 10:01 am
Juan,
Instead of not voting, spoiling your ballet makes a stronger statement.
As I have seen the political events unfold in US over the last 20 years, I must confess that the Parliamentary system seems to work better, even if it does work like a ‘winner take all dictatorship’ at times. But even when this happens the bums usually get thrown out next election, whereas in the US each party is pretty much the same picture of corporate servitude and corruptness.
US cannot afford to fight another long war. Next downturn there will be riots in the streets. They can’t print pay cheques forever and expect them to buy anything.
Paulo
paulo1 on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 10:08 am
Adding to this above post, my brother and his wife renounced their US citizenship last month…at least started the official process. She was a US veteran, (army captain, I believe) and has simply given up on the country with the latest foray into war.
I was born in US but grew up Canadian. While Harper seems to have his hand down Obama’s britches, at least Chretien kept us out of Iraq war. I was sorry to see Canada send fighters to support the ISIS foray, even though this need to be addressed, somehow. I hope there arer no Canadian captives over there as they will now also face the knife.
Time for all, ALL gringos to go home and leave the ME unless specifically asked to help. Israel can take care of herself, and will.
Paulo
JuanP on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 10:12 am
Paulo, I can’t vote in the USA because I am not a citizen, only a legal alien permanent resident or Greencard holder. To vote in Uruguay, I would have to travel there because Uruguayans can’t vote from abroad. I’d probably do what you suggest, otherwise.
There is no advantage for me in becoming a US citizen other than voting, which I don’t care for. On the other hand, there are multiple legal and tax disadvantages to my becoming American as I derive most of my income from abroad and in my current status I don’t have to pay taxes anywhere in the world on that. I only pay taxes for the income I generate in the USA.
I think it is unlikely I will ever become an American for financial reasons.
JuanP on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 10:21 am
Paulo, I have always held Canada and Canadians in high regard, but I’m afraid that Harper and the oil sands have brought you down a notch in my mind. Canada remains one of the best and most beautiful countries in the world, though. I think all the world is getting worse and none of us will be spared.
I am curious, why is the spelling of your name portuguese?
Plantagenet on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 10:27 am
Panetta and Hillary warned Obama that his policy in Iraq would lead to another war. Now we’re in another war, and Hillary and Panetta —the smart ones—– have walked out leaving the dumb ones still in control in the Obama administration
ghung on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 11:14 am
Gosh, Plant, what Iraq policy would you have suggested. Stupid does as Stupid did?
Kenz300 on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 11:46 am
Hate, anger and intolerance……….
This is religion ?
Beery on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 11:49 am
“…the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact… The effect would be much the same if the three superstates, instead of fighting one another, should agree to live in perpetual peace, each inviolate within its own boundaries. For in that case each would still be a self-contained universe, freed forever from the sobering influence of external danger. A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This–although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense–is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: WAR IS PEACE.”
– George Orwell, 1984.
Plantagenet on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 11:59 am
Two years ago Obama is boasting that he is leaving behind an Iraq that is safe, stable, and secure; six months ago Obama is mocking ISIS as the “JV” and now Obama has launched a 30-year-long war against them? Helllllllloooooooooo—–what is the plan here?
Northwest Resident on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 12:13 pm
Don’t be distracted by what the puppets on the stage are saying or doing. Instead, pay attention to the shadowy figures moving behind the curtains — the ones that are working the arms, legs and especially the mouths of those puppets, doing their ventriloquist acts. The puppets are short term temporary players on that stage. The shadowy figures behind the curtains have always been there, are there now, and will be there for as long as the stage remains standing.
ghung on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 12:15 pm
Plant – You still haven’t said what you would have done differently.
Keith_McClary on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 12:17 pm
ghung wrote:

“Gosh, Plant, what Iraq policy would you have suggested. ”
I keep asking him that. No answer.
Northwest Resident on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 12:22 pm
ghung, Keith — Our resident criticizer and blamer-in-chief is the worst kind of criticizer and blamer. Constant criticism and blame-placing, accompanied by absolutely no recommendations at all on how it could/should have been done differently, no ideas on how it could be improved, no specific points on how it went wrong. Just pure, nonstop criticism and blame.
Plantagenet on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 12:37 pm
Read Panetta’s book. Obama was advised by BOTH Hillary Clinton AND Leon Panetta how to avoid the current war. Obama was too stupid to take their advice, too stupid to see that ISIS was rapidly growing in power in Syria, too stupid to notice that ISIS was connecting up with Sunni insurgents in Iraq, and too stupid to act until ISIS was at the gates of Baghdad. Now Obama has embroiled us in an endless war in both Iraq AND Syria—-what could be stupider than that?
JuanP on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 12:41 pm
Plant, Or Obama is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing, creating chaos everywhere and increasing weapons sales.
apneaman on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 1:01 pm
For my money, this is the most accurate and insightful source for the MIC/war machine/foreign policy.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/
PrestonSturges on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 1:24 pm
The CIA has had a pretty perfect record of being wrong about everything, including Russia’s nonexistent invisible subs and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
JuanP on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 1:32 pm
Apneaman, Pepe Escobar, who writes for several places including TomDispatch, Asia Times, and RT is one of my vavorite journalists right now, refreshingly honest and unbiased, IMO. I also like what Tom writes.
paulo1 on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 1:40 pm
Juan,
Paulo was my nickname. Changed from Pablo started by my brother, but in fact given name is Paul. There were several Pauls posting on TOD and elsewhere so I just stuck with Paulo. The originator was an Italian/Greek named Tomas. Go figure. When websites cause user name hassles I just add a number like many do and re-up.
I totally get why you retain immigrant status.
regards…Paulo
Plantagenet on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 1:45 pm
JuanP: the whole idea that Obama has started his new wars because war is good for the economy has been discredited many times. Wars kill people, destroy infrastructure and interrupt trade—none of these things are “good” for the economy.
GregT on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 1:59 pm
I feel sorry for the Syrian people. Their country is about to be destabilized, and bombed back into the Stone Age, just like Iraq was. These assholes could care less about people anywhere. All they care about is greed, power and control. They are the root of all evil on this planet.
When Arthur was still posting on this board, I used to tell him that I believed that their New World Order would succeed. I’m not so sure about that anymore. More and more now, I see WW3. A nuclear WW3. Assholes.
JuanP on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 2:05 pm
Plant, I never said I thought it was a good idea, as far as I am concerned it is symptomatic of how screwed we are and how bad US foreign policy is at this time.
Steve O on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 2:28 pm
“A 30 year war”
The generals and defense contractor execs are opening Champagne and singing “Happy Days Are Here Again”.
Northwest Resident on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 2:53 pm
“Leon Panetta is pretty much the epitome of a status quo insider.”
Which means, you have to take everything he says with a grain of salt.
Are entire books written to spread disinformation and to manipulate public opinion? Yes. This looks like one of those to me.
dubya on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 2:56 pm
“Wars kill people, destroy infrastructure and interrupt trade—none of these things are “good” for the economy.”
Mr Plant, I believe you are erroneously looking at this from the POV of a human being.
– selling bombs & bullets to one or both sides of a conflict – very good for business.
– destroying infrastructure – somebody has to go in and rebuild all those schools, hospitals, power lines, military bases… and Stanley Consultants will be there to help spend your money (not to pick on them, but they were the first hit from “rebuilding infrastructure in Iraq”.
Killing people – there seems to be little societal distress from going in and killing tens or hundreds of thousands of ragheads, and the american casualties are mostly black southerners, who appear to be expendable. I only recall one iraq death that caused a stir: a white football player, poor guy.
interrupt trade – I guess cutting off the supply of Persian carpets has devastated the US economy. That’s why we’re in the ME, to support democracy and keep carpet trading open.
dubya on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 3:08 pm
So let’s review – some Saudis (or Mossad, or the CIA) blow up the WTC, so we invade Iraq, drop a few random expensive smart bombs on families leaving behind grieving relatives who feel surprisingly wronged who then seek revenge using low tech weapons like exploding pressure cookers who are labelled ‘terrorists’ who only hate us for our freedoms; now in order to restore peace in the ME we are going to go in and drop a few random smart bombs on families.
I’m not surre whether to insert a sarcastic comment or not, maybe there are politicians & captains of industry who don’t see the problem here…
Edward Boyle on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 3:14 pm
Helen keller said the below in1911-The more things change, the more they stay the same it seems.
“Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.”
Read more at http://www.notable-quotes.com/k/keller_helen.html#G3WRXaKzdkqe96cZ.99
Northwest Resident on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 3:14 pm
dubya — No need to insert another sarcastic comment — you already wrote an entire sarcastic paragraph. Not that sarcasm isn’t richly deserved in this case.
The one and only reason we are in any of the ME countries is because of the oil. All of the terrorist hunting, all of the emotional appeals to democracy and freedom and all that crap — just throw it out with the trash. One reason and one reason only — OIL. We just gotta have it — or so we’re told.
Davy on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 3:19 pm
Very soon the infrastructure will not get rebuilt in areas destroyed by war or acts of God. There will be no resources for rebuilding. It will soon be a struggle just to maintain what is already built let alone build new. Many of these locations no longer have economic merit now. In the post oil world how many of these locations will have economic usefulness. So, what we are seeing in Syria is pre-stone age training. The real thing is just a few years down the road. Folks we are very near to a critical threshold where civilization and infrastructure can be eliminated for good because we will have entered the dark period of contraction and descent. Syria may never rebuild into a country as we remember it. Much of it will be depopulated as a wasteland. Infrastructure and civilizations quickly succumbs to entropic decay in the best of times.
Edward Boyle on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 3:27 pm
I am reading a us history book by howard zinn, very left wing, and it seems when social pressure internally builds up and lack of profits for business wars are started to rally the public so they forget their miseries, to crush intrnal dissent, win new markets. This pattern has repeated often but what if we lose always? Internal repression from prmanent and not periodic plus acceptance that economy can’t recover anyway due to petering out of new technology, infrastructure, investment decline means war is a goal in and of itself, self perpetuating and destabilizing the whole planet, as in mihddle east, ukraine,etc., not nation building, as in western europe, japan, korea. The brits were smarter, got 300 year empire with few troops, lots oftrade, spread english plus parliamentary and british legal system. USA makes since vetnam enemies, spreads chaos. Goal is like on wall street, keep short term prices up without seeing long-term goals.
GregT on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 6:19 pm
Senate Armed Services Committee – March 7, 2012 – Defense Secretary Leon Panetta declares to Senator Sessions that the military can take action authorized by the UN or NATO before it is authorized by the US Congress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovuWJQrwpIw
George Bush Senior: New World Order Speech.
“An order in which a credible United Nations can use it’s peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision, of the UN’s founders.”
ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g
“It should be understood that the UN’s founders were not decent, principled men like those who won our national independence and created our constitutional republic. The architects of the UN were men who advocated “peace” through world tyranny. They included State Department official Alger Hiss, who served as secretary-general of the UN’s 1945 founding conference in San Francisco. Hiss also collaborated with Soviet official V.M. Molotov in the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks conference, during which the UN Charter was drafted. The Hiss-Molotov team was a match made somewhere other than in heaven, since Hiss himself was a Soviet agent and a traitor to this country.
The UN founders reverently invoked by President Bush included 15 other American officials in the State and Treasury Departments who were later identified as Soviet agents. Their paymaster, Soviet tyrant Josef Stalin, endorsed the UN shortly after its founding as “a serious instrument for preservation of peace and international security.”
The UN is indeed a testament to the “vision” that inspired such wretched men – and this fact should be seen as an indictment of the organization, rather than an endorsement. The UN’s founders included many figures from a New York-based private organization called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which in the words of the late Washington Post ombudsman Richard Hardwood is “the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States.” The CFR, which has dominated the Executive Branch of our federal government for decades, was created by globalists following the Senate’s rejection of the League of Nations Covenant following World War I. In 1939, two years before Pearl Harbor thrust America into World War II, the CFR began laying the groundwork for the UN, which, like the League of Nations, was intended to be a framework for world government.
Knowing the background of the United Nations is essential to understanding the true threat the organization represents. While the UN is a haven for foreign thugs, tyrants, and terrorists, it is inaccurate to look upon the organization as a foreign entity seeking to invade and conquer the United States. Instead, the UN should be viewed as a vehicle through which corrupt, power-seeking elites in this country and elsewhere intend to acquire power over the entire world. The CFR is the most visible part of this international Power Elite, and by studying the published materials and public actions of the CFR we can understand the tactics that are being used to undermine our national sovereignty.
In the April 1974 issue of the CFR journal Foreign Affairs, diplomat and academic Richard Gardner pointed out that while “instant world government” may be impossible to achieve, it would be possible to build “‘the house of world order’ … from the bottom up rather than the top down.” According to Gardner, “an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”
The method described by Gardner is sometimes called “patient gradualism.” By slowly sapping our country’s sovereignty, globalists can achieve the objective of empowering the UN to act as a world government without attracting a great deal of public opposition. But there is an alternative approach: Using sudden crises, such as wars, disasters, terrorism, or similar threats, to scare the public into accepting a new world order.
In 1962, CFR member Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology published a report entitled A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations. This document, which was commissioned and paid for by the U.S. State Department, outlines a global political system in which the UN has the means to impose its will upon the entire world. While the report acknowledges that creation of such a new world order may take decades or more to build, it also points out that there is “an alternative road” that could bring about results much more quickly
The alternative approach to world government “relies on a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose,” wrote Bloomfield. “According to this version, the order we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks.”
The UN’s founding documents offer a formula for total government on a planetary scale which, if implemented, would lead to what Professor R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii, calls “democide” – systematic mass-murder by governments. In his study Death by Government, Rummel documented that during the 20th century nearly 170,000,000 people were murdered by their own governments. Governments exist to protect their subjects from the violence of the lawless. Nevertheless, observes Rummel, the uncomfortable truth about governments is “that some of them murder millions in cold blood. This is where absolute power reigns.”
Absolute power is the objective of every criminal, terrorist, or tyrant – and it is the goal of the globalists behind the UN. If they obtain what they seek, the result would be a reign of terror beyond our imagination.
ht tp://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/un_not_friend.htm
DMyers on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 6:26 pm
Davy, I agree with your comment. What you’re seeing is a profound break from the past, which is in a dimension that we have not yet perceived. The outlook now is that tearing down will provide the opportunity to rebuild, as it has always before.
You have related your point to the setting of Syria. We can also start to wonder how massive destruction might play out here, in the main corpus, USA. The same inability to rebuild will be present. This country will become a fly with one wing removed. Its energy will be spent rolling over and bouncing off walls. We cannot operate this socio/economic/politico system without all infrastructure intact.
This may be the biggest change we will ever encounter. War will come home. We will have to realize that war is not, after all, something that only happens “somewhere else.”
Davy on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 6:32 pm
Greg, I don’t see the UN as having much power now. They appear just a mouth piece of lame talk and ineffectual actions. Budgets have been slashed and the polarization of the world is further eroding what power it may have had. Should’t you be looking at places like the IMF, world bank, and the other many secretive groups.
Preston Sturges on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 6:49 pm
The thing about Obama’s critics is that first that they insist the president has no constitutional authority then they cry about why he hasn’t taken bold unilateral action.
If you have ever dealt with a sociopath or other manipulative mentally ill person, you might recognize the GOPs tactics as typical of a sociopath – loudly wailing and accusing while arguing both sides of the argument at the same time.
GregT on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 6:52 pm
Davy,
The IMF, and the World Bank, are extensions of the UN, and they are no more secretive than the CFR.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank
Davy on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 6:55 pm
D, you are definitely correct about the US coming decay. The US has so much infrastructure that needs constant repair with much already in poor shape. Hurricanes, earthquakes, and other acts of God could be game enders for whole regions in this new scenario. This is immensely important if you are in one of these regions at risk. Mega population areas should be considered problematic. As critical infrastructure decays or is destroyed population carrying capacity could decrease to the point that mass migrations are necessary. Just consider the water supply to New York City as one example. Risk management is needed now by concerned individuals. At some point the system will be overwhelmed with demands to repair vital infrastructure. Of course degree and duration will matter in the severity of a potential crisis. My primary point is we are tipping over to a new paradigm of entropic decay and dissolving complexity. If you are located in a highly complex area be aware and have a plan. If you are planning to move consider a place with some relative resilience and sustainability. I say relative because all locals have been delocalized and are codependent on an unstable global system. Yet, avoid adding to that a location that has infrastructure decay risks and risks of acts of God. Limit your potential dangers but also knowing nowhere is really safe.
Davy on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 7:00 pm
Greg, you understand better these issues I defer to your research. My superficial view of the UN is an impotent large organization that talks but does little. Maybe that is camouflage for something more sinister under the surface. Maybe in this case appearances are deceiving me.
GregT on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 7:24 pm
Davy,
I routinely watch the UN Security Council meetings. Anyone who does so with an unbiased and open mind, should clearly be able to see the partisan politics, and the globalist agenda.
The most recent slaps in the face of the UN were the vetoes by Russia and China halting military action aimed at the ousting of Syrian President Bashar Assad. An uprising was fomented by the US State Department against the democratically elected government in Ukraine, leading to the annexation of Crimea, and a bloody civil war. Sanctions were imposed on Russia by the UN, for the downing of flight MH17. There has still been no official investigation determining who was responsible. Only a media frenzy of speculation, falsehoods and lies.
The US has now circumvented those vetoes, and is currently carrying out airstrikes on Syrian sovereign territory. This is against international law, and in direct violation of the UN security council resolution. Which begs the questions; Why is the UN not taking action against the US coalition? Why is there no Security Council tribunal?
Kenz300 on Wed, 8th Oct 2014 9:36 pm
If the Iraqi’s will not fight for their country….. they should not expect others to come in and help them.
The whole middle east is a hell whole full of hate, anger and intolerance……. religious intolerance in pursuit of what?