"'[Mein Kampf' for the 21st Century?"

You've got to check this out if you don't subscribe to the NWO...

les Aaron


"Mein Kampf" for the 21st Century? "The Grand Chessboard", by Zbigniew Brzezinski Review by Norman Thyer - May 2002 In the early 1920s, Adolf Hitler wrote a book entitled "Mein Kampf" (My
Struggle), extolling German nationalism, expressing his contempt for other
ethnic groups, such as Jews and Slavs, and his admiration of war, and
stating the need for Germany to expand eastwards. Following the destruction
of a highly significant building in Berlin in 1933, he attained power and
proceeded to carry out his plan. At first, other powerful nations did not
interfere with his actions.
At one point in "Mein Kampf", he said that what cannot be achieved
amicably, it is up to the fist to take. Eventually his "amicable" approach
failed to achieve his aims, and World War II resulted.
Reference to the "fist" has reappeared in recent years. In a March 28,
1999 New York Times article, Thomas Friedman wrote: "For globalization to
work, America can't be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it
is... The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist -
McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the
F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's
technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine
Corps."
The need for a belligerent policy had been expressed earlier by a
Pentagon official:
"There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes,
there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe.
Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic
struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role
of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and
open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of
killing."
- Constant Conflict - RALPH PETERS
From Parameters, Summer 1997, pp. 4-14.
The full article is on the website:
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97summer/peters.htm Madeleine Albright, US ambassador to the UN, is reported to have said:
"What's the point of having this superb military ... if we can't use it?"
Friedman's article was written at the time of NATO's attack on
Yugoslavia. For the current "War on Terrorism" in Asia, a closer equivalent
to "Mein Kampf" is "The Grand Chessboard", by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former
National Security Advisor to President Carter (Basic Books, 1997). In it,
he claims that for the USA to fulfil its destiny of controlling the world,
it must control Central Asia. That region has huge reserves of oil and gas,
and in 1998 the oil company Unocal was lobbying the US government for
legislation to facilitate building a pipeline from Central Asia through
Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea. Indeed, Brzezinski's book contains a map of
projected pipelines, including the one through Afghanistan.
In the introduction (p.xiv), he writes: "The ultimate objective of
American policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly
cooperative global community, in keeping with long-range trends and with
the fundamental interests of humankind. But in the meantime, it is
imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating
Eurasia and thus also of challenging America."
In principle, a world united in peace and democracy sounds like a good
thing, even under a "benign" hegemony or quasi-dictatorship. But would the
reality be democracy or corporate domination? Does the reality of US
hegemony in Latin America over the past two centuries give us any reason
for optimism?
While some chapters deal specifically with Europe and east Asia, a
significant portion covers central Asia, concerning which he says: "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. Geopolitical
pluralism will become an enduring reality only when a network of pipeline
and transportation routes links the region directly to the major centers of
global economic activity via the Mediterranean and Arabian Seas, as well as
overland. Hence, Russian efforts to monopolize access need to be opposed as
inimical to regional stability."
Brzezinski also states: "The public supported America's engagement in
World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor." (pp.24-25)
And: "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" (p.36)
And: "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multicultural society,
it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy
issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived
direct external threat. ... In the absence of a comparable external
challenge, American society may find it much more difficult to reach
agreement regarding foreign policies ... that still require an enduring and
sometimes costly imperial engagement." (p.211)
In other words, an external threat is the most effective way of uniting
the American people behind their leader, even when the enemy is as vague as
"terrorism". The attacks of 11 September, 2001 appear to have achieved that
result. Indeed, they could well have been a necessary prelude to the
current military actions in Asia. What will it take to get public support
for attacking Iraq?
Related to the above quotations is an extract from a report of the Project for a New American Century. That organization's Statement of Principles ( www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) is signed by several people including Elliott Abrams, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. That same organization wrote the following in its report of September 2000, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" ( www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf):
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions." [Rebuilding America's Defenses - p51 - p63 of pdf file]
Well they got a "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" a year later. Be careful what you wish for - you may get it!
Click here for more Book Reviews
Click here for more Peace & War
Click here to return to home page