I was thinking about 1962, and the Cuban missile crisis, and how the world nearly came to the brink of total annihilation. On the one hand some of the top strategists on both sides were thinking of surviving a full nuclear exchange, and on the other, both sides had enough warheads to totally destroy the entire earth, several dozen times over---safe secret remote bunkers would have been useless, as the earth would have been turned into one giant molten lava. But it didn't stop idiots on both sides coldly calculating that a nuclear exchange between the superpowers could be managed, within certain parameters, and all would be OK at least for 'them' if not the rest of mankind.
On the one hand you had the Soviet Union controlled by Jews, leading a totalitarian regime, initially funded by Jews from New York and London, experimenting with a Pseudo-Jewish ideology, in the process of killing and having killed 60 million people, but their control of the country is such, even now in the Russia of 2008, that no mention, or commemoration is made of this single most horrific event in history or their indispensable role in it.
On the other side you had the United States, which since 1901 with the Presidency of Teddy Roosevelt, had come under Jewish control, and the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 further reinforcing their power in the country.
I'll keep this simple as possible:
The Jews in the USA knew that their people controlled the USSR. After all thousands upon thousands of their people from New York, and else where joined the Revolution in the Soviet Union (Leon Trotsky came from New York, Lenin and Stalin met with their Jewish overlords ---Rothschild's and others-----in Europe in Vienna, Austria). These linkages did not break at the start of the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917, but continued well into the twentieth century.................and in that sense Khrushchev's (nee Perlmutter) overture's to Eisenhower, both Jews, makes sense in light of their control of both superpowers. And yet we had the spectacle of the Cuban missiles crisis...............and the possibility of nuclear exchanges, leading to the total destruction of the earth.
The Two Jewish leaders meeting; both hid, or shall we say did not overtly display their Jewish background----but displayed their respective, 'Typical men role'
Two theories may be suggested by us 'anti-Semites'---------that the whole episode of the Cuban missile crisis was a staged hoax by Jews, to at a minimum exert even greater control over the USA, by instituting a security state, and or, getting rid of a certain percentage of the Goyim population in a war, whatever percentage that may be----30%, 40%, 70%, 90%................
Or on the other hand, the elite Jew with all its privilege, position, 'sophistication' , eloquence' and power is still basically a Jew elite..........completely nuts...........with no real grasp of serious events. It took a gentile non-Jew to break the stalemate in 1962 by offering real tangible face saving compromises to the Jew run Soviet Union, that is the offer that the nuclear missiles in Turkey would be withdrawn soon, if the Soviet agreed not to place nuclear missiles in Cuba, and thus he alone avoided a nuclear holocaust-----the ultimate weapon of war created by.................................the Jew.
The Jew is a creation of Satan...........and when the earth finally ceases to exist it will be because of the Jew. Look at their faces, look at their language.......look at their actions all around.
I have not come across that many books by Iranians which closely and credibly looks at the role of the British, Americans and the French in the destabilization and subsequent over throw of the Shah. I have come across a few websites which allude to the British role specially, but nothing substantive in the way of a book. Perhaps there are Farsi language books which do extensively address the role of these Western powers in the over throw of the Shah.......but the best book that I haven't read but which I would recommend to readers who wish to understand how the West over threw the Shah is this one.(Especially if you are contemplating attacking Iran militarily---------I cannot emphasize the importance of this enough)
The journalist Mirebrahimi in that sense is very superficial, and perhaps, and although I am not familiar with his background, because he still lives in Islamic Iran, he must moderate the true facts of what actually happened in Iran during 1978-79 to get his work published.
He suggests that the West played a peripheral late role in the Islamic revolution of 1978-79, and very late in the game, as neutral observers otherwise but for the turn of events principally initiated by those great political revolutionaries the mullahs and their friends in the Iranian left. Whilst Engdahl in his 2004 book, suggests the West played a very key role in the toppling of the Shah. Engdahl's thesis makes sense, as do Engdahl's clear explanations of their motivations; On the other hand for those who follow these things Mirebrahimi's explanations do not add up.........they leave many questions to be unanswered. I am not going to picks these points and highlight them here, but this is the duty of people who are reasonably affected, and concerned by the subject of Iran.
On what logical grounds would the Carter administration topple the Shah? Well in all power structures there are several layers of power, with degrees of knowledge of what is really going on.......and finally different people have different agenda's.
- The Shah was an American installed puppet from 1953; whilst at an earlier time in 1941, he was a British installed puppet.
- His secret police SAVAK was trained by America and Israel.
- American oil companies for the first time broke the monopoly of the British control of Iranian oil, after 1953. They were given 40% of the market share
- The Shah put most of his petro-dollars in American banks-----some $30-40 billion is still languishing there, even now, as frozen Iranian assets at current prices.
- He brought huge amounts of arms from the USA, and perhaps worth $150 billion at todays prices. If he had continued in power perhaps another $300-500 billion; very much what Saudi is doing now with its petro-dollars
- He was a friend of Israel, and allowed them to open an embassy in Tehran.
- He gave Israel cheap oil, and bought arms from Israel worth $500 million per annum in the mid seventies; and MOSSAD and SAVAK carried out joint ops, mainly against Arab countries.
- The Shah all in all was a 'good-boy' who stood up when told to or sit. A man of weak character........and the perfect Third World puppet for America.
- The Shah was made 'policeman of the Gulf' in the early seventies, a very sensible plan which recognized after Vietnam that America could not control everything directly around the world and the best policy was by using local proxies.
Its partly to do with the European based Bilderberg group (Brzezinski), and their agenda's articulated through their agents, and partly to do with the fact that certain Anglophone American's accept the UK as the ancient Greece to ancient Rome. The British have a rich history of negative interference in Persian affairs starting in the early part of the twentieth century. Any policy that comes out of the UK in relation to Iran, must therefore by logic be negative.........business as usual.
In relation to the mad Jew one cannot say with certainty what role they had in toppling the Shah. Reason and logic garnered from the above facts would suggest that they had no role in toppling the Shah.........but consider the fact that America since Teddy Roosevelt has been in Jewish hands, and any American policy in relation to the nation of Persia, reasonably close to Israel, must logically receive approval from the Jews. Consider the fact that the MOSSAD regional head was actually in Tehran as Khomenei was stepping off the plane, and entering downtown central Tehran, shouting and cheering with his colleagues, in complete joy, incognito of course. (Trita Parsi: "Treacherous Alliance").
Consider the fact that until recently VEVAK, a mutation of the old SAVAK, had as its defacto head a Jew, by the name of Saeed Imami.......responsible for killing numerous intellectuals in Iran, and it is alleged the son of Khomenei, Ahmed. Consider the fact that the Democratic party (the primary Jewish political vehicle in America, at least then in the 1970's) was in power, and it is their high representative, Carter who is sent to the region to tell the Shah to 'democratize'...soon as he is elected, which he obediently did, with hundreds of political prisoners released.....who then go on to organize the 'Islamic Revolution' thereafter within a short time.
So Shlomo you tell me the Jew was not involved.....well yes of course....logically not.
The biggest loser out of all this was America and of course Iran........ stupid and unnecessary, for America.
So why choose France?
Khomenei had to be fixed in a place where his 'Islamic Revolution' could be organized with the 'right people', to get their agents based around him, and his revolution sold.......No Muslim country would want to play along with such man lest they get their own Khomeini, and so the 'Islamic Revolution' had to be launched from a Christian country, and Paris played host......Moulin Rouge, gay Paris.......etc....the irony and humor.
We see the large number of important Iranian personalities coming and going, between Tehran and France. Also the role of the French in assisting in killing politically exiled Iranians who aggressively organized real resistance to the mullahs of Iran. (Shahpour Baktiyar)
Britain and America couldn't play host, for obvious historical reasons. Though London has traditionally hosted a huge number of Islamic fundamentalist organizations and their hardcore members.
The BBC played a important role here, giving him extensive airtime, and circulating his bullshit, his weird theories and propaganda through the British World Service and the BBC Persian service, a key instrument of British foreign policy and hence intelligence, as relevant important 'news' for the informed public...........
Ayatollah Khomeini's book - The "Tahrirolvasyleh". The book is written in Arabic.
Here are just a few of the 'great leaders' quotes:
"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomizing the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister... It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband's house, rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."
"Wine and all intoxicating beverages are impure, but opium and hashish are not." (Iran currently has a few million drug addicts)
"If a man sodomies the son, brother, or father of his wife after their marriage, the marriage remains valid."
"During sexual intercourse, if the penis enters a woman's vagina or a man's anus, fully or only as far as the circumcision ring, both partners become impure, even if they have not reached puberty; they must consequently perform ablutions."
"An Islamic regime must be serious in every field,"
"There are no jokes in Islam.
There is no humour in Islam.
There is no fun in Islam."
(And so true for millions of Iranians)
“A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.”
“If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, an ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned.”
"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world." (Very logical!)
Yes I can see why the French might support him.
These are not the statements of a learned Islamic scholar, these are the words of a pervert; otherwise a Jewish Rabbi peaching to his flock.
So after 30 years of the 'Islamic Revolution' this book comes out by an Iranian journalist....better late than never!
Iran's Islamic Revolution Had Western Blessing
NEW YORK, Jul 26 (IPS) - In his new book on the covert history of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, award-winning journalist Roozbeh Mirebrahimi says that Western powers, including the United States, accelerated events by recognising and supporting religious revolutionary forces, forcing the shah to leave the country and averting a coup by Iran's army.
In 1953, the United States had deposed the popular government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet via a CIA-backed coup d'état. Anti-communist civilians and army officers supported the coup.
Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's second departure from Iran, almost a month before the victory of the revolution in February 1979, had dramatically raised concerns among the leaders of the revolution that Washington would try to stage another coup to bring back the shah, who had fled to the United States. However, diplomats who were at the centre of events say that an accommodation was reached between Western countries and Iran's Islamic clergy.
In an interview with IPS correspondent Omid Memarian, Mirebrahimi said that the role of the West in facilitating the revolution has been largely ignored, particularly by the Iranian government itself. His Farsi-language book, "Untold Aspects of the Iranian Revolution" (Khazaran, 2008) is based on an extensive interview with Abbas Amir-Entezam, the spokesman and deputy prime minister in the interim cabinet of Mehdi Bazargan in 1979.
Amir-Entezam, now Iran's longest-serving political prisoner, was an ambassador to Scandinavian countries during the hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy. He was accused of spying for the U.S., arrested and sentenced to death in 1981. This was later reduced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Critics suggest the charges were retaliation against his early opposition to theocratic government in Iran.
IPS: There are rumours of a meeting between the French president's representative and Ayatollah Khomeini in Paris, prior to the revolution. What was the significance of this meeting?
RM: While Khomeini was in exile in Neauphle-le-Chateau near Paris and leading the revolution, he was asked by the current world powers to meet and to have a dialogue. He raised some demands, including the shah's removal from Iran and help in avoiding a coup d'état by the Iranian Army. On the other side of the table, the western powers had certain demands too. They were worried about the Soviet Union's empowerment and penetration and a disruption in Iran's oil supply to the west. Khomeini gave the necessary guarantees. These meetings and contacts were taking place in January of 1979, just a few days before the Islamic Revolution in February 1979.
IPS: What made these same western countries turn against Khomeini and others just months after 1979 Revolution?
RM: Western powers had been monitoring the political and social changes inside Iran for a long time. They had been trying to understand the internal changes in Iran through the forces they had in Iran or the people they would send to Iran, such as [former U.S. attorney general] Ramsey Clark. They had realised that Iranian society was on the verge of a fundamental change. They chose to accommodate this change. After recognising the opposition groups, they facilitated them with opportunities such as media coverage. Through this action, changes accelerated with an unexpected speed. In the next stage, in order to prevent the Soviet Union from taking advantage of these changes, amongst all existing opposition groups they chose the religious forces to stand against communism, which was anti-religion by nature.
IPS: But why after the revolution did they turn against them?
RM: I would say because of the revolutionary atmosphere inside Iran and actions of the empowered radicals, this relationship faced challenges.
IPS: Why did U.S. officials trust Ayatollah Khomeini enough to negotiate with him?
RM: [William H.] Sullivan, the U.S. ambassador to Iran, was keeping a very close watch over Iran's internal affairs and analysing all the developments. All the army and military affairs, all the macro-level decisions and reactions by the Shah's regime, all the activities of the religious forces, activities of the communists, and all other revolutionary forces were monitored by him. According to documents and books published in the United States and other western countries, around September 1978, four months before the revolution, it was clear that the shah could no longer stay, and that they should be looking for a way to reach an agreement with the opposition. All the contacts and dialogues picked up pace during this time. The religious forces that were surrounding Khomeini at the time were people like Yazdi, Bazargan, Bani sadr, Ghotbzadeh or among the clergy, people like Beheshti and Motahhari... They were educated and relatively technocratic and the west felt that they could rely on them. After the revolution, this trust and relationship remained intact until the invasion of the U.S. Embassy.
IPS: Why did the hostage-taking occur at a time when the new government under Ayatollah Khomeini had a normal relationship with the U.S.?
RM: Ayatollah Khomeini was opposed to radical actions such as invading the U.S. Embassy. For example, this was not the first time the U.S. Embassy was occupied. Right around those early days of the revolution, during the first 10 days, the U.S. Embassy was occupied for the first time by the leftist forces such as Khalgh and other parallel forces, but this received a very strong reaction from Ayatollah Khomeini who sent Ebrahim Yazdi to the embassy to get the revolutionary occupiers out of there. During the second incident, Khomeini was caught off-guard after the incident had already taken place. Pressure by the radicals at that time caused Khomeini to react by standing behind it. That incident caused Prime Minister Bazargan to resign. Prior to this incident, the relationship of the new government with the west was still quite normal. We should not forget that exactly one day after the revolution, the United States officially recognised the new government.
IPS: So what kind of an impact did all this have on the Islamic Revolution?
RM: This book has several features. First, it reexamines the Islamic Republic's portrayal of the history of the revolution, which is a red line in today's Iran. Secondly, Amir Entezam himself has always been a red line for the regime, which has tried so hard to erase his name from all official records. Thirdly, a person from the new generation, born in the year of the revolution, has done all of this research. And I'm very happy that after five years of all kinds of bans and obstacles, this book is getting published.
Taken from the Lberty Forum HERE
The Grand Chessboard which along with the PNAC (2000) document seems to have become official foreign American government policy.---It should be read by those who wish to understand the real USA government policy, in the twenty-first century.
Admiral William J. Fallon, then the commander of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), referred to Bagram as "the centerpiece for the CENTCOM Master Plan for future access to and operations in Central Asia." (Therefore against RUSSIA, thereafter)
An ethnic Slav, racially; hates Russia big time.....because of the perceived injustice done by Russia against Poland, which was in the sixteenth and seventeenth century a major European power. Poland was overrun and divided by Russia and Prussia in the eighteenth century; Russia taking the lion share. Obviously as a Polish nationalist there must be considerable resentment towards Russia. He has however woven an intricate academic work which states that some how it is in America's best interests to confront and destroy Russia eventually, and dominate the resources of Eurasia, to maintain America's primacy.
(Condi Rices background is Russia)
It seems key figures in the American political and security establishment have bought his arguments as central to America's future destiny without seriously asking what utility such policies really have for America's overall well being....of course getting suckered into an empire illusion sounds and feels great. But at what cost? Can it be realistically achieved? Will it destroy America...even before America achieves that final goal, given the initial problems along that road encountered in the 'minor' operations against two weak Third World nations..........never mind....Iran, Central Asia, Russia ........and China.
Obviously academics, and pseudo academics have their little kooky pet agenda's........and it would have been harmless otherwise for the fact that Brzezinski is a 'leading light' in the foreign policy establishment of America, and will once again become a very important policy initiator of American government actions under President Obama.
He would have been a minor academic were it not for the fact that the Rothschild power structure based in Britain picked him as their candidate to articulate their agenda's in America.....and thus to their general and specific interests viz a vi Russia.
And so some of his short quotes in his book have been highlighted below and I am going to make simple passing comments about them, and give my opinion. Suffice to say that I think Brzezinski is wrong, and his ideas are dangerous and not realizable..........America was never meant to be the sole global superpower..........and the idea of that for the past several years hasn't exactly worked great wonders in reality........and we are not even in Central Asia yet battling with the Russians and Chinese.
The idea that a nation of 300 million should dominate, control and dictate to the world how to exist is not a true American ideal, it is a Jewish ideal.
Academics in their 'Ivory Towers' may weave great fiction and theories that persuade the gullible with catchy words and phrases, but usually such ideas in reality don't work out in practice.
So lets be direct and put it simply----Brzezinski is just another front for the Jew, and their global designs.............and have identified him as useful for their goals.
Obviously the golden horde is massing to take over the world; in your bookstore soon by Zbig, at $2.99 paper back, 110 pages, in the fiction section.
"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii)
Great incorrect sweeping statements from an academic ......the continents have been interacting politically since Roman Times......some two thousand years ago, and not a mere 500 years ago.....The relationship of Imperial Rome with Persia, and Persia with India, and Persia and India with China....diplomats, travelers, traders and religious people coming and going, for more than two millennium.........in fact to be pedantic and exact, political interaction of states began under the very first superpower on earth, Persia (550-331 BC), with all its neighbors......and ironically given the regime in Iran now, it was Persia which set the standards and basics of diplomacy between states, some 2300 years ago, which the rest of the world now follows.
As to the 500 year ago figure, is this some kind of Rothschild Quija board number just conjured up at Somerset House to play with because its a nice and round figure? Who were the world powers 500 years ago? The book is written in 1997, minus 500 years and we arrive at 1497.........There was Spain emerging as a significant power.....But I don't think its in Eurasia....do you Zbig? There was Ottoman Turkey......but again not an Eurasian power like Spain...territories in Eastern Europe mostly, and then after 1516-7, more territories in the Near East, and North Africa.
There was China, but that is not part of Eurasia, is it? Geographically it is part of East Asia. India, again not part of Eurasia, was 500 years ago divided, with Muslim rulers to the North, and Hindu rulers to the South.....but none were great powers. Central Asia, saw the passing of Timurlane, and after him his short lived empire collapsed into squabbling fragments.....again not a great power to be compared to the Ottomans by 1497. The Tartars in Russia were in retreat, and the Mongols ceased to be as powerful as they were under Genghis Khan.......again they were fragmented into little squabbling tribes as before by 1497.
So where is Zbig's center of world power theory in relation to Eurasia? It was Spain in Europe, Ottoman Turkey in Eastern Europe, and the Levant soon thereafter, and China in the Far East.
And unless I am mistaken he is saying that Eurasia has been the center of power continuously for the last 500 years; what utter baloney! This is Mickey Mouse history, with a seriously dangerous agenda, obviously since he is an academic who does active politics.
Eurasia has been for the last 500 years historically, economically and politically MARGINAL in the world theater. In fact throughout history it has been this way for Eurasia, except for the brief period of Mongol domination in the 13th and 14th century. It is Western Europe that emerged as the center of world power , over the last 500 years.
Why hasn't Eurasia spawned great civilizations like China or Egypt, or Rome, which can be translated into political and military power?-----Most of Eurasia is harsh landscape where growing things have always been very difficult. It is very sparsely populated. The reasons why people from this area following primitive nomadic lifestyles have always migrated or raided civilizations near their vicinity---in Europe, the Middle East, South Asia and of course China.
The current reality is this----Mongolia with 3 million, basically a Third World country isn't going to harm anybody; Sinkiang with 11 million Uigurs being swamped with Chinese immigrants, again is a Third World mess, and is not suddenly going to break free from China, and harm anybody; Central Asia with 60 million odd people who are ethnically very mixed, again is a Third World stagnant backwater-----not going to threaten anybody.
The only state that can be a significant global player is Russia, with 142 million, and an economy of around $1800 billion PPP. Third most powerful nation on earth behind China conventionally speaking, and still has the second largest nuclear weapons stockpile after America. However it is unstable, with a projected population of 80 million by 2050-----given this fact, it can't be a major global player. Russia, unlike some countries, does not seem like it wants to take over the world and threaten anybody.......it just wants to exist in its own space with dignity.
Now Zbig you can spin you transatlantic fantasies as much as you like for your Jewish masters perennially looking for an angle, in another region for its resources, and wowing your circle with fancy words.......but first, let us use some basic facts.
For me Eurasia is most of Russia, Mongolia, Sinkiang province of China, and Central Asia.
"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geo-strategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)
Why use a vague term like Eurasia? Why not be more exact and name names........You mean Russia Zbig don't you? There is no other candidate, unless you include China in Eurasia as well. It is a lot easier to formulate a national strategic policy around a specific nation, than around conceptual geographic entities.
And what part of manifest destiny states that America has to check an 'Eurasian' power.....on what grounds? Great powers come; great powers disappear....this is the law of nature.....which GOD wishes to break this law?
America has no business to poke its big Jewish nose in the affairs of 'Eurasia', and still less intervene in it. There is no historical reason why America must intervene and build a whole strategic policy around this region.
Whilst an emerging China built up with Jewish Capital might threaten the USA globally, the rest of Eurasia, the true Eurasia, does not pose a serious threat to America, and I am including Russia in the non-threatening category.
The Chinese economy will be $15 trillion by 2012, the largest economy on earth, with the largest industrial base, the largest trading nation, and banker to the world......and the USA.......In the years to come Zbig they will be coming to your country to tell you how to run your country, and how to spend your money. They will have a defense budget of around $750 billion by then.......and they are more appealing to the rest of the world than America currently.
If you are scared of China, as well you might be, then stop the Jews from investing in the country, and the huge amount of technology transfer of high military value to the country. Stop providing them easy access to your markets, and the MFN status. Stop sacrificing American jobs and manufacturing for a few cents of profits for the multi-nationals. The Chinese nearly own you don't they, with the $ trillion holdings of American $ and other such securities..........As a major hardball American strategist, how come you didn't address this issue a lot earlier? Why did you use vague terms like chess board and Eurasia and cut to the chase instead........The Chinese, a Communist dictatorship which will soon surpass the American economy, maybe within a few years, and has the largest industrial base in the world, and is defacto America's banker and creditor.........they can shut America down tomorrow.
"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)
It is not America's business to manage Eurasia, nor is its latest manifest destiny set by the usual clique. And no its not 'critical' that America manages Eurasia; its only 'critical' in the minds of a small globalist elite who have their own set of agendas wholly disconnected to America's true interests.
Speaking from a more practical perspective Zbig, which you with your sweeping statements seem to be missing is that the American economy cannot perform your 'Grand illusion'---BUT at least it was nice, thinking about it. The American state cannot achieve such a grandiose ill defined objective. The American military will not be able to achieve such a 'Grand illusion'..........................America may well be bankrupt well before any serious attempt is made to 'control Eurasia'. You've been reading too many Kipling books courtesy of your friends in Europe and the Bilderberg Group.
Which are the two of the three most advanced economical regions in Eurasia? Russia is not advanced, and China whilst economically large is not yet technically advanced, innovating new technology......for the moment they are still copying. Who on earth are you talking about in your furtive imagination?---why don't you just come out straight and name the countries? On what moral grounds, or even strategic grounds does America need to control emerging regions and the nations within them?
I like the world 'subordination'.......it has a colonialist/Nazi ring to it, but the thing is Zbig empire's are a little bit out of fashion these days; the smart thing, and the modern thing to do is to have good relations with all nations, and then making sure your businesses get the most advantage viz a vi competitors from other nations, in a fair and open way. Your arguments about geography only makes sense in a Freudian way, the Globalist/Zionist agenda...........your language and your terminology has a Protocols feel to it.................kind of a Blofeld and his henchmen having a confab, over how to take over the world, sort of thing.
SMERSH meeting...some where in the lair of the super villain:
"Yes agent 1, have we achieved our objectives"
"Yes we will soon be in control of that continent, it is only a matter of time"
Do watch some of the sixties Bond movies, and Austin Powers more recently, but remember not to take them too seriously----------they are fiction, right Zbig? Did you get that, fiction.
Further 75 % of the world's people may well live in that region, and they are hard working and productive creating good quality things (Their economies aren't built on speculating with money), and a good deal of the earth's resources could be in that region, but what is that to you? What Jewish business is it of yours to lier over other peoples achievements and hard earned work, fornicating yourself over other peoples wealth, presumably you seem to suggest America should smash and grab, again and again?
As in Iraq------literally in the case of the Baghdad museum? Wonderful example ! Bravo! America will now be invited openly to invade all Eurasian countries. and they are going to just lie down, and surrender because they have read Zbig's book and they agree. It makes sense to me and them.
“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)
That sounds like a blood and iron speech......'populist democracy' as in politicians actually listening to their people....is that what they do in Capitol Hill? I must have been fooled.......why on earth would plutocrats, destined and chosen to rule, listen to ordinary uniformed people? Your damned right about messianic leaders trying to control everything not always being popular, because history has shown that most mere mortals are fallible to absolute power-----that is the experience over your hope.......And finally the call to 9/11....and all these years I thought it was MOSSAD, and their agents in America.
“The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)
What is it to you if Asia is developing naturally. Actually nothing of the sort....Alaska, Brazil, Africa, and not forgetting the sea bed, has more oil than most Americans will ever need. Your strategic resources which America must control coincidently is in the South of Russia, or actually in Russia, your eternal Polish foe.............how do you expect to get it, with the agreement of Russia? Why not do it in the normal business to business way?
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
Yes America is very multi-cultural. By 2050 it will be even more multi-cultural Do you see that as a weakness, and a disadvantage to your foreign designs?
And the call to 9/11 again.
"...The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power...” (p. xiii)
No this is not the first time a non-Eurasian power has become the most powerful...there was ancient Egypt, especially under Ramesses II (1279-1213), so OK Egypt was a regional power and not a global power. How about ancient Rome? How about the British empire? The Ottoman empire?----ALL non-Eurasian.
Why turn history on its head to make it sound like America somehow has achieved something really unique and divine? The American empire will come and go just like the rest.
Is America a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations? Isn't this a bit too sweeping based more on hope, rather than reality----The Shanghai Co-operation Council; the military maneuvers between China and Russia; the oil deals between Russia and her neighbors, and Chinese inroads into Central Asia and Iran; Uzbekistan refusal to allow American bases in their country----doesn't that all suggest that whilst America may be fluttering around quite a lot, with diplomatic and intelligence activity in this area, in places like Georgia and the Ukraine especially, essentially Russia and China are still very very important players in Eurasia, and America's role is peripheral.
And what is the problem with that? None I can see. Obviously China and Russia as the big players in that region must exercise the requisite power and influence in their neighborhood; it is only natural. It is however highly unnatural for the USA to come from the other side of the world, and try and build an empire at this late stage----its silly, and beyond the silliness, dangerously bad for America.
The American hyper-power in existence since 1991, will be with us for a short while......I'll give it until 2010/2012....somewhere in that time frame......it could have lasted longer, but the Jew got over excited, and over worked America to the point where it is now----$10 trillion national debt, huge debts to the rest of the world; a crumbling financial structure; crumbling housing market; crumbling infrastructure; industry shipped out......very small manufacturing; a very corrupt elite, which does not have the best interests of America...............Zbig you know as well as I do that great nations are built on solid foundations of strong independent institutions, and a society working optimally to put it very simply..........great nations are not merely made with the number of tanks, fighter planes, warships and the size of their armies.....there are many complex socio-economic factors that make a great powerful nation.......beyond maps, bases, geo-strategy........and security.....otherwise why would a country like the Soviet Union just disappear...with 65,000 tanks, 5,776,000 men under arms, 8,500 jet fighters, 35,000 artillery pieces...........20,000 nuclear warheads by 1989....into nothing in a matter of a few years?
Why seeks new enemies abroad when America has so many problem within her borders? Why seeks so many new adversaries abroad when the elite of America seem to be determined to destroy the country from within? Perhaps because you are so focused on Eurasia you do not see these things, and never will.
"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)
Well besides being highly arrogant, for who are you to state what nations at least in their own neighborhood can't reasonably develop, is also a little stupid to say such a thing----China is already a superpower, though wise enough not to throw their weight about; they own America.......or didn't you know that?So the book is written in 1997, and it is 11 years since, and there have been your 9/11, as you wished....and Iraq, Afghanistan.......which will cost America trillions of $..........America is struggling fighting wars that were never necessary. Given the nature and quality of the present and precious administrations, there has never been any clear strategy on anything, let alone a huge and complex subject like Eurasia. The Bush administration for example makes up policy as it goes along, ad hoc with no clear objectives, and hence the severe mess America is in now....just look at the way they deal with the financial crisis...4th grade stuff...and the next administration which is selected, in which you may play a greater role will face huge problems both domestically and abroad, and so its actions and options will be very limited......very limited in Eurasia from a practical perspective.
"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp 24-5)
Do you need to make it that obvious about 9/11? Besides the murder of 3,000 innocent people, the whole episode from a historical perspective, and into the future has been a disaster for America, utter disaster. You have your grand strategies and great ideas, but if you have Mickey Mouse administrations in the White House with criminal tendencies, who have problems dealing with small domestic problems like Katrina's....what luck can you expect over grand strategies involving Eurasia? Where you must be lucky over a considerable period of time, not to mention the $trillions that must be expended, and human sacrifices to attain your Eurasia empire.
"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” (p.30)
No of course not, America is far from preeminent in Eurasia.....it wasn't in 1997, and it isn't now in 2008 (Russia is reasserting itself in the region, and China is stronger than ever), to say otherwise is seriously deluding yourself. Watch out for the Taliban, you know the fifth column you created with the help of the ISI to destroy Afghanistan from 1994, and I assume sometime later Pakistan.....they may eventually force the USA out of Afghanistan.
And finally no, America's primacy never depended on controlling Eurasia, America otherwise a great nation has come a long way without ever meddling in Eurasia. Court jesters like you can't change this fact----you are after all a bitter old man, who is a Polish nationalist at heart, who wishes to USE the USA to crush Russia once and for all, vengeance for defeating the old Polish empire. In that sense I can understand why Zionists like you, and why they found you an useful idiot, and promoted you through the ranks, with your loony ideas.
"America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)
A cheap tacky Zionist front would say that---no surprise there. The founding fathers of America never intended America to poke their nose into other nations business.....and whilst they spoke over 200 years ago, we underestimate their infinite timeless wisdom, and the great things they did for America. Perhaps you Zbig need to re-read George Washington's final farewell address, and see the sheer eloquence of the man who actually fought for America, instead of attending international Zionist conferences, with their presentations:
For you Zbig.........
George Washington's Farewell Address
FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:
1 The period for a new election of a citizen, to administer the executive government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts must be employed designating the person, who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprize you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.
2 I beg you at the same time to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.
3 The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives, which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence impelled me to abandon the idea.
4 I rejoice, that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty, or propriety; and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that, in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.
5 The impressions, with which I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say, that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied, that, if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe, that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it.
6 In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude, which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; than, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation, which is yet a stranger to it.
7 Here, perhaps I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.
8 Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.
9 The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
10 For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
11 But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those, which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the Union of the whole.
12 The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds, in the productions of the latter, great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connexion with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.
13 While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in Union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from Union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighbouring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty. In this sense it is, that your Union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.
14 These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the union as a primary object of Patriotic desire. Is there a doubt, whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope, that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to Union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those, who in any quarter may endeavour to weaken its bands.
15 In contemplating the causes, which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief, that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart-burnings, which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those, who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them every thing they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the union by which they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren, and connect them with aliens?
16 To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a Government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions, which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate Union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.
17 All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.
18 However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
19 Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations, which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.
20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
26 It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.
27 Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
28 It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric ?
29 Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.
30 As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
31 Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices ?
32 In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.
33 So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
34 As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
35 Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
36 The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
37 Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
38 Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
39 Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
40 It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
41 Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
42 Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
[43-50 omitted from some newspaper printings.]
43 In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course, which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.
44 How far in the discharge of my official duties, I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.
45 In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my Proclamation of the 22d of April 1793, is the index to my Plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your Representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.
46 After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest to take, a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverance, and firmness.
47 The considerations, which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe, that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the Belligerent Powers, has been virtually admitted by all.
48 The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations.
49 The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavour to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption to that degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.
50 Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope, that my Country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.
51 Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man, who views it in the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations; I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow-citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government, the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.
United States - September 17, 1796
"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)
"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)
"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)
"Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)
[Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict - describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance] "Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124)
"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)
"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)
"Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people.” (p.132)
"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).
"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)
"Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145)
"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)
"China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149)
"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)
"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)
"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)
"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)
"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)
"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)