This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Regime Change: America's Failing Weapon Of International Deception
For years, Winston Churchill’s famous quote, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried,” has served as Americans’ last word in any political discussion which requires validation of the US government, no matter how corrupt or flawed in its behavior, as the best in the planet, comparatively or by default. Never mind the meaning that Mr. Churchill had intended back in 1947, or how the international political panorama has changed during the past seven decades.
These remarks were made by Britain’s prime minister before the House of Commons a few months before there was a changing of the guards in the “Anglo-Saxon Empire” as the Brits gave away their colonial hegemony in favor of the super-influential economic and military power represented by the United States. And that was symbolically marked by Britain’s relinquishing its mandate in Palestine, and the creation of Israel.
Such reference to democracy in the quote, explicitly defining it as a “government by the people,” basically applied to Britain and the United States at the close of World War II; but such condition has deteriorated in the US to the point where the “common people” no longer have a say as to how the nation is run, either directly or through politicians elected with financial support provided by special interests, undoubtedly expecting their loyalty-vote. Yet, while this un-democratization period in our system of government was happening, there were many nations that were adopting a true code of democracy, their citizens having a greater say as to how their countries are governed. Recognizing such occurrence, however, is a seditious sin for an American mind still poisoned by the culture of exceptionalism and false pride in which it has been brainwashed.
And that’s where our empire, or sphere of influence, stands these days… fighting the windmills of the world, giants that we see menacing “American interests,” and doing it under the banner of “for democracy and human rights.” Such lofty empire aims appear to rationalize an obscene military budget almost twice as large as those of Russia, China, India and United Kingdom combined! Americans, representing less than 5 percent of the world’s population, are footing a military bill almost twice as large as that expended by half of the world’s population. If that isn’t imperialistic and obscene, it’s difficult to image what other societal behavior could be more detrimental to peace and harmony in this global village where we all try to co-exist.
Empires and global powers of the past most often resorted to deposing of antagonistic foreign rulers by invading their countries and installing amicable/subservient puppet rulers. The United States and the United Kingdom, perhaps trying to find refuge, or an excuse, in their democratic tradition, have resorted to regime change “manipulations” to deal with adversary governments-nations. [Bush43’s Iraq invasion stands as a critical exception by a mongrel government: half-criminal (Dick Cheney-as mentor), and half-moronic (George W. Bush-as mentee).]
Regime change has served the United States well throughout much of the Americas from time immemorial; an endless litany of dictators attesting to shameless in-your-face puppetry… manipulations taking the form of sheer military force, or the fear of such force; bribery of those in power, or about to attain power – usually via military coup; or the promise of help from the Giant of the North (US) in improving economic growth, education and health. Kennedy’s 1961 Alliance for Progress proved to be more political-PR than an honest, effective effort to help the people in Latin America… such program becoming stale and passé in Washington by decade’s end; the focus shifting in a feverish attempt to counter the efforts by Castro’s Cuba to awaken the revolutionary spirit of sister republics in Central and South America (Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua…).
After almost two centuries of political and economic meddling in Latin America under the Monroe Doctrine (1823) banner, much of it involving regime change, the US is finally coming to terms with the reality that its influence has not just waned but disappeared. Not just in nations which may have adopted socialist politics, but other nations as well. US’ recent attempt to get other regional republics to label Venezuela (Maduro’s leftist government) as a security threat not only met with opposition from the twelve-country Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) but has brought in the end of an era. It’s now highly unlikely that secretive efforts by the CIA to effect regime change in Latin America will find support; certainly not the support it had in the past.
To Washington’s despair, similar results, if for other reasons, are happening throughout North Africa and the extended Middle East; certainly not the results the US had hoped for or anticipated from the revolutionary wave in the Arab Spring, now entering its fifth year. It is no longer the flow of oil that keeps Washington committed to a very strong presence in the Middle East. It is America’s Siamese relationship with Israel.
But if regime change is no longer an effective weapon for the US in Latin America or the Middle East, the hope is still high that it might work in Eastern Europe, as America keeps corralling Russian defenses to within a holler of American missilery. Ukraine’s year-old regime change is possibly the last hurrah in US-instigated regime changes… and it is still too early to determine its success; the US counting on its front-line European NATO partners to absorb the recoil in terms of both the economy and a confrontational status now replacing prior smooth relations.
Somehow it is difficult to envision an outcome taking place in Ukraine which would allow the United States a foothold at the very doorsteps of Russia; something totally as inconceivable as if China or Russia were contemplating establishing military bases in Mexico or any part of Central America or the Caribbean.
The era of using regime change as a weapon of mass deception may have already ended for the United States of America… and hopefully for the entire world.
- 32892 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


America has always lied itself to war - few believe US lies now. Obama almost lied his way to a war with Syria about sarin:
Lies: An Abbreviated History of U.S. Presidents Leading Us to War
8. Vietnam (Kennedy, Johnson, 1964) -- Lies: Johnson said Vietnam attacked our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin in August, 1964.Truth: The US didn’t want to lose the southeast Asia region, and its oil and sea lanes, to China. This "attack" was convenient. Kennedy initiated the first major increase in US troops (over 500).
9. Gulf War (G.H.W. Bush, 1991) -- Lies: To defend Kuwait from Iraq. Truth: Saddam was a threat to Israel, and we wanted his oil and land for bases.
10. Balkans (Clinton, 1999) -- Lies: Prevent Serb killing of Bosnians. Truth: Get the Chinese out of Eastern Europe (remember the "accidental" bombing of their embassy in Belgrade?) so they could not get control of the oil in the Caspian region and Eastward. Control land for bases such as our huge Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, and for the proposed Trans-Balkan Oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea area to the Albanian port of Valona on the Adriatic Sea.
11. Afghan (G.W. Bush, 2001) -- Lies: The Taliban were hiding Osama. Truth: To build a gas/oil pipeline from Turkmenistan and other northern ‘xxstan’ countries to a warm water (all year) port in the Arabian Sea near Karachi (same reason the Russians were there), plus land for bases.
12. Iraq (G.W. Bush, 2003) -- Lies: Stop use of WMDs -- whoops, bring Democracy, or whatever.Truth: Oil, defense of Israel, land for permanent bases (we were kicked out of Saudi Arabia) to manage the greater Middle East, restore oil sales in USD (Saddam had changed to Euros)
http://www.activistpost.com/2010/12/13-lies-abbreviated-history-of-us.ht...
Lies and Consequences in Our Past 15 Warshttp://www.truth-out.org/news/item/9419-lies-and-consequences-in-our-pas...
Even articles like this erroneously refer to the US as a democracy. WTF. The programming runs deep.
"A republic...if you can keep it."
Very poorly written article. Better to say that Andy Jackson was about the last bad ass to fight of the banksters and die a natural death, then Salmon Chase and his buddies passed the legal tender laws, and shortly thereafter (or possibly before) London dispatched the Fabian socialists with their patient gradualism. We were firmly back under the yoke of London banking cartel come 1913. And you are correct, a republic is an EXTREMELY limited form of democracy (not truly akin to traditional 51% takes it democratic concepts at all). The elected leader's function was supposed to be to guard the principles of the Constitution and the limited Republic, and history will remember that, despite this cruft of an article.
In the eyes of many who founded this nation, it was only a stepping stone to a global government, the new Rome - but the new Rome will be the UN with a global bank, and the multinational corporations holding court, and then the end come.
Then again, I may be wrong.
lookie there -2 to 0, prolly tano is kin to aton .. no worries, you'll get your pie, for a brief time :-) turn and repent honkie, while you still got time
Democracy is the worst form of government just like all the others that have been tried.
They haven't tried panarchism, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchism
Panarchism is a political philosophy emphasizing each individual's right to freely join and leave the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale. The word "panarchy" was invented and the concept proposed by a Belgian political economist, Paul Émile de Puydt, in an article called "Panarchy" published in 1860. The word "panarchy" has since taken on additional, separate meanings, with the word "panarchism" referring to the original definition by de Puydt.
De Puydt, a proponent of laissez-faire economics, wrote that "governmental competition" would allow "as many regularly competing governments as have ever been conceived and will ever be invented" to exist simultaneously and detailed how such a system would be implemented. As David M. Hart writes: "Governments would become political churches, only having jurisdiction over their congregations who had elected to become members."
How should panarchists deal with crime?
<<They haven't tried panarchism, though.>>
Who is they?
How should panarchists deal with... territory? Particularly one contested by non-panarchist powers?
What passes for gvt is silly these days, we are a legend in our own minds.
great interpretation of american hegemony, well done!!
--- the same as any sane man would be expected to deal with a common brigand or robber. It is up to him.
<<How should panarchists deal with... territory? Particularly one contested by non-panarchist powers?>>
With a group of neighbors and a rope.
AND NOW WE SWITCH TO RADIO KREMLIN
AND OUR REPORTER FOR YOU: ZH.RA. RASPUTIN!
An intentionally hamstrung republic runs neck and neck with a truly benevolent monarchy in my view, give or take. I long to live in a world populated only by moral men and women capable of self governance (queue little dreamer :-)
I think it was Rothbard I read years ago who talked about truly free banking, which might have been a neat thing (and woulda probably worked). Anyway, things are likely going to follow the path people are beginning to see. I'll defend myself and remain faithful to my beliefs. A reset of sorts is coming and a new hope, but this is only the calm before the real storm. This system is too large, and armed to the teeth, no diplomatic means of disarmament that I can see. There will be BIG fireworks, but hopefully not for some years yet.
"Governments would become political churches"
Like in the Middle East? And you will counter by saying that people are forced to live under those governments and, yet, thousands are freely going there from around the world to join ISIS.
Otherwise, such a system would work right up until one government church decided there wasn't enough room in the area for competitors (probably within a year, maybe six months). Let the political/religious tribal wars begin.
As a technician I am again and again stunned about technical progress, because of the rulership of empiric science (verifiability, reproducability, freedom from contradictions). Contrary to working computers, information technology, robotics: politics and social sciences show no progress at all. IMO this is because IDEAS or VISIONS are always treated by their followers as facts and never verified by scientific testing at the concrete example.
I find this idea interesting, but illusionary. I had similar ideas for a long time but systems must be separated in space:
Why not create counties in which certain political, economic and monetary systems are established and tested?
The USA would be big enough.
For example why not crete a county for black people only and give Nation of Islam the chance to show what they can.
Another county could establish interest and debt free money.
Another one could offer a libertarian regime.
That way the good and not so good developments in each one could be studied. But ofcourse that would be against the totalitarian wish of the TOLERANT ones, to control the whole country and bring democracy to the whole planet - disagreement not allowed!
Then I want an experimental country where black and white loafers get the stock if they willl not work.
"For example why not crete a county for black people only..."
Actually Liberia was created with the express purpose of having a homeland for black Americans
interesting, unexpected and laudable return in the discussion to the virtue of tolerance, btw
Strangely enough almost all black Americans preferred slavery to freedom in a country run by their own kind.
We had that once. They were called states.
Bankers couldn't be banksters without government.
Maybe it's the monopoly of force thingy you don't understand.
+1
Bingo.
correct, though I'd put it differently: "Bankers couldn't be banksters without governments..." weaponizing banking for other purposes
as a simpler example, central banking, the one monetary institution that allows a government to fight a war first, and then pay it later (and indirectly)
bankers spoil governments.
a bank is an institution, just like an entreprise.
as said before, to the man who said governmement and finance is the same, i totally disagree.
an entreprise making money do not need any governmement. but a government need money to work.
governmement only act to match finance so it can work, but finance is free.
why not a single gov in the world succed to fix banking system.... hm? just because a dog never bites his master....
governmement is front door of the societal circus. finance is leading the world.
no political solution. only a crash and total rebuild: money is the core of the problem.
"no political solution. only a crash and total rebuild"
Methinks you're correct.
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... http://goo.gl/ezLA00
Unfortunately, your bs is becoming one of the better comments.
Sucking cocks for a living is not a good way to go about life, son.
....or daughter or mom or dad or gpamps
Go back and look at how GW ran the presidency and interpreted the job and the new constitution. He had the right idea.
The split was already starting, though, as Hamilton sided with the banksters while Jefferson sided with the more limited form of govt.
This is where the quote of Jefferson's came from about allowing a private bank to run the republic's finances.
GWB , aka the Great Decider, is an idiot who was choking on pretzels and banging his head on the coffee table until he was re invented as a super hero by the PNAC revolutionaries after he was complicit in the New Pearl Harbor attacks on his own country.
Great guy.
These "presidents" are all blackmailable bankster ZWO puppet mascotts. Getting that is square one.
I think you guys are talkin bout 2 different Georges.
You can keep your republic. I would prefer to be free.
define free
free is bs.
you always have to deal with something, choices to make, that's the purpose of life.
OK, it started out as a Representative Republic to which Ben Franklin said "if you can keep it". Well we didn't. We have been usurped. It is now a Corporatocracy. This is a term usually used from a left or left leaning or libertarian perspective. I embrace it while self identifying as an extreme right wing, biased, biggoted in some cases and red neck. I also disavow any affection for the Cheney's, Bushes, Clintons or Obamas of the world, In fact I cannot name a single pol that I like (trust) in today's USA except...possibly Scott Walker. It doesn't matter, if he were to become POTUS he would soon be informed where the bear craps in the woods and shown a picture of JFK to get the point across.
When your primary product as a nation is the process of spreading democracy and freedom throughout the world then it is just a short cut in language. If Ford Motors were to become 95% invested in making cheese would you still call them an auto company? If we spread Representative Republics and freedom the same way we do democracy would that change anything? To paraphrase Nancene the obscene Pelosi, "We have to kill them first so they can be free".
"A republic...if you can keep it." We lost that a long time ago, now just the good old Police state , but police states usually do not last that long with an armed population , but you do need people with ball's to use the guns, now that could be a problem.
ZOG runs America. It really is as simple as that. And no, I don't have a tinfoil hat or wear bed sheets to meetings.
The U.S. hasn't fought a 'just" war since I've been alive.
Possibly the last one was in 1812, to keep the London bankers at bay.
the Canadian point of view of that war is slightly different. They ask why American Troops were looking for London bankers in Canada
Define Just War;
noun: just war:
just war is a war that is deemed to be morally or theologically justifiable.
Morally? theologically? WTF is that?
The_battle_of_Tours?
I watched your link get it. But what difference does it make? Moral relativism is the flavor of the day.
"Moral relativism is the flavor of the day."
It's all going as foretold:
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." - Matthew 7:13-14
Can't you see that we are being tested Brother? I'm humbled in all my strength when I see the faith of christian children of the ME who are being persecuted in the name of God. I am nothing compared to them.
Amen. We are tested here too- by an amoral, money-loving, consumerist, anti-God, anti-life, pro-perversion, pro-government largesse atmosphere that pervades the Western world.
I believe it might be a blessing to them to look evil squarely in the face, easier to see clearly what evil is, even to the death, for what they believe in.
Here in the Western world, I believe similar circumstances will come, and can only hope and pray that many here have the courage and steadfastness of those little ones.
""For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? "For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? "For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels."- Mark 8:36-38
"We are tested here too- by an amoral, money-loving, consumerist, anti-God, anti-life, pro-perversion, pro-government largesse atmosphere that pervades the Western world."
Sure sounds like how I picture the Whore of Babylon.
For starters, know that I'm no angel. The Christian children of the ME are NOT being tested by an "amoral, money-loving, consumerist, anti-God, anti-life, pro-perversion, pro-government largesse atmosphere that pervades the Western world."
Their FAITH is being tested, as will our own FAITH be tested in our own time of despair. Who created all of the troubles you mentioned? We did, the west, by our OWN greed and selfishness.
This is a fine line of distinction in theology and the reason certain generations were not allowed to move forward until all those responsible perished.
"But what difference does it make? "
well, it does. If you are peacefully minding your business and an invasion fleet fills unprovoked your sight towards the seas, well, then perhaps you might think differently and fight a just war. Many defensive wars can be grouped in this class
And lies and the killing in the hearth of America in 9/11. I said then it was a non turning point. It's an Historical Paradigm. It showed cristal clear to the World the extent of America's misery.
Don't cry for me Argentina, the truth is, I'm Venezuela.
Don't shift the subject away. I was referring to 9/11.
Sadly, our "Suez Crisis" is coming soon, somewhere in the South China Sea.
FTA: "The era of using regime change as a weapon...may have already ended for...the entire world."
Not likely, unless human nature changes.
Did Zion get the memo?
THe banksters need to repay us.
The Monroe Doctrine was actually the spawn of the British, engineered by Canning, to have the U.S. do the heavy lifting for the London banksters.
<----Tripe
<----Drivel
With a neocon/zionist deep state, the proxy terrorism and destruction of infrastructure will continue. tens of thousands will die. all for the Oded Yinon plan.
And if you oppose it, they'll call you a nasty name... a name that is so much worse than supporting the murder of thousands of Muslim kids.
Please consider giving to the Wounded Warrior project. your government would help out your vets, but Israel needs that money for more white phosphorus and flechette shells to use on the hospitals and schools you paid to destroy, and will pay to rebuild...
Wounded Warriors.
I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive to some. I would personally house and care for someone who was wounded defending this nation but I refuse to help the banker/oil companies/MIC mercenaries. The US government prints money to fund Wall Street, let it print money to take care of the vets of the "banker wars" (Smedley Butler) The military has several "black budgets" with no accountability, let them take care of those soldiers. I will not be swayed by millionaire country singers to give $19.95 a month to essentially bail out the government from taking responsibility for the mess it has created.
I have the same disgust for ads for starving children (starring some fat slob that obviously has never missed a meal) and the ads for the starving Jews (they should hit up Blankfein and a thousands of other bankers, Hollywood execs, and multinational CEOS).
The charity's are just another diversion to make people think what they do matters. I remember when Bill Clinton and "arch" enemy W Bush held hands together asking for your donations to help the tsumami victims of Indonesia. It seemed surreal. Now I realize they could have just printed up the dollars.
They did, just not on their watch, but Hillary was in on the fix.
Although the article above appears to be relatively correct, the sequel could become switching gears to cause genocidal wars that mass murdered at least hundreds of millions, as well as democidal martial law within that context, which mass murdered at least tens of millions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkCEOSgLRt4
Zbigniew Brzezinski: "It Is Infinitely Easier to Kill a Million People than it is to Control Them."Zbigniew Brzezinski
another psychotic polak
fuck the US Government. End of the Dollar is the end of the CIA. Can't wait.
If those that have the gold make the rules, what of those that are broke?
The banksters need to repay us.
There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is fiat.
And she's buying a stairway to Zion.
+ for the Zep reference
Ukraine: yeah, we looted some people.
Good article. Now what?
The internet is a wonderful thing. Generations from now people will look back and say "What long term outcomes were expected from from all that deception? poor investments can be had with much less work"
this is all about the MIC
nothing to do with democracy.
it is the antithesis to democratic principles.
it's BS. we all bought it. and it's still BS
and i hope the mofos sink in it.
listen up nudelman and your puppy mad mccain.
The world is rapidly figuring out that the American Emperor has no dick.
The emperor has one, it's engaged in buggery.
He always seem to be trying to stick his uninviting cock in other people's asses, much to their chagrin.
But he does have his regulars, like the UK, France and Australia.
And then there is Poland and Co, who are cheap and willing sluts.
And that little controlling bitch, Israel, who always has him by the balls...although lately she has been withholding sex because he is not being 100% compliant.
In the days of sound economics the US consumer was seen as the engine of the global economy.
The world bowed to US elites to access the all the important US consumer.
US elites decided to wipe out the US middle class and the US consumer.
The US consumer was the source of US influence around the world.
that is still an amazing meme: "see here, we have plenty of consumption". what it really meant - always - was: plenty of access to credit
read again your last sentence: "The US consumer was the source of US influence around the world". Does it really make sense to you?
US elites decided to wipe out the US middle class and the US consumer.
Yes, that must happen before the ZWO can usher in it's global plan for everyone. US has always been a sticky wicket hence the assault on the constitution since nearly day one of it's existence. Once it is (or has been) rendered meaningless, just and old piece of paper out of tune with modern reality, THEN can the consolidation of powers occur.
US govt is the Roman Empire of the 21st century.
Over-extended and picking too many fights unwisely abroad and increasing domestic unrest will see it crumble by the end of this century, if not earlier.
You forget the mass murder and international plunder.
I suggest Paul Craig Roberts speaks for many of us here.
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/23-03-2015/130097-russia_und...
re The era of regime change (...) may already have ended....
Not so fast.
That still leaves regime change FOR the USSA - AND the "usual suspect" co-conspirators.
We worry. We whisper. We wonder. We watch. We wait. We withstand. We win.