World Power II

America will destroy itself and the American people, the ones without any power will be caught in the middle. There will be a meltdown of the economic -- and therefore political -- relationships that America has with the rest of the world, and then there will be the collapse from within of the social, political, and economic relationships within the nation. The country may fragment, a group of very powerful rogue states struggling for resources. America's image, mainly supported by an immense media storm, is already beginning to crumble. There is too much inertia in the country for a radical change, too many people set in their ways, don't you think?

The type of change required would go hand-in-hand with revolution. If that is true, the American people will be required to overcome all of the "national security" safeguards that protect the country from revolution or coups d'etat or other subversive actions. The police actions of the 1960s against the Black Panthers exemplify this. Current homeland security measures, even more so. Any threat to the government or the "American way" (which depends on who is defining it) is deemed a terrorist act and will receive the response of every level of law enforcement.

So, to effect revolutionary change, someone with power would have to act against his/her own interest and support the interests of the American people and lead a revolution, or the American people will have to overcome the world power they have helped to create.

"... would it have to be someone that already had power? Couldn't a revolutionary rise to power whilst benefiting themselves because, to put it simply, they want exactly what the people want?

"...my opinion still remains the same, that America will not "sink far enough" to need a revolution. The soon-to-be-elected Democrats will change some of the current problems, and America will soon start it's imminent decline from "World Power" status." (A. Nesmith-Beck; "1984 And Other Dystopian Fiction," Facebook Discussion Group; 28 May 2007).

There is so little space for those not empowered to act. Grass-roots organizations exist all over the place but no one of them has the organizing power to attract any or all of the others. A lightning rod is needed and, often in Western culture, that lightning rod is a celebrity. Any celebrity that would want to align people for a revolution against the powers-that-be would be, in a de facto fashion, acting against big media -- against their celebrity status. If, on the other hand, the empowered individual was an academic, or a captain of industry, or ex-military, or ex-government, all of these people, are acting against their own interest. I maintain that the person would have to be empowered, If, as you ask, the revolution is in line with the interest of the individual and, thus, is empowering, I question the ability for that revolution to overcome the safeguards in place. The empire can only collapse from within. Weakened by its own largesse, a revolutionary move is the bare minimum requirement.

Keep in mind that the Democrats still have to keep the war-profiteers, uh... er... industries such as weapons manufacture, oil and gas, automakers, and aerospace companies, happy. As long as corporations can contribute to political campaigns, "thy will be done." It would be revolutionary if the Democrats would, after attaining office, remove that capacity, but, again, they would be the empowered taking revolutionary action. I don't see it AS happening. Would a political party shoot itself in the foot like that?

As far as other potential changes that the democrats could institute, any change large enough to shift or change America would be revolutionary. I consider America a Juggernaut in the truest sense of the word. Immense. Powerful. Armed to the teeth. Heavy. Moving at a pace that makes it an unstoppable force. The only immovable objects America faces are the Second American Revolution or the immovable object that is Peak Oil, or Economic Collapse, World War III (which is already, mostly, happening).

America and Britain are in a fix. They, two of the G7/8 invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq (under false pretenses). All of the West owes a lot to China for its cheap consumer products, the lifeblood of a Western economy, and both China and Russia get oil from Iran, neighbours and associates of Iraq on the "Axis of Evil." Both America and the UK, sometimes (like Y) Canada, are heavily dependent on the success of the War on Terror being fought to secure their meal tickets. Ignoring the warnings put out by Kyoto Protocols and the Doomsday Clock and the recent Stern Report, the consumption of fossil fuels proceeds apace, which, in turn, continues the widening of the gap between rich and poor. All of this under the pretense of securing freedom for everyone, while greedom reigns supreme. Freedom is for those who accept what freedom is permitted to them.

Now, the war is against "the Terrorists." This is merely a preamble. Eventually, the war will be against the dissenters, or the shit disturbers, or the anti-globalisation nuts... anyone who says "NO." It is in this respect that I say that WWIII, not a clash of ideals (as in WWII) and not a clash of world powers (as in WWI), but a clash of circumstance, of powers and ideals.

What is the break point? WWIII will only be recognized when the disenfranchised of every nation take up arms and fight their oppressors -- both within and without. It is the war of the Rich against the Poor. It is the most devastating series of wars imaginable, civil and international wars with simultaneous ends.

Revolution is preferable.

There are currently talks of a neo-Cold War. Russia is pissed with the West. China is looking to take top spot from the US: economically, militarily, socially. They do have the Olympics this year... And, what of the spread of anti-American sentiment -- not that it is undeserved -- across the globe. Military power is being proven ineffectual daily in Iraq. It was proven ineffectual in Lebanon last summer. Despite the power of guns, ideas reign supreme. So, choose. War -- WWIII -- or Revolution.

"Alright, all of this probably will happen, but will it really happen soon? I can see the world plodding on for about another twenty five years..." (A. Nesmith-Beck; "1984 And Other Dystopian Fiction," Facebook Discussion Group; 31 May 2007).

No. Sooner. Don't forget the history you, yourself, have witnessed. American foreign policy did not change between the "election" of Bush in November 2000 and 11 September 01. He was then re-elected November '04, and there were bombings in London 7 July 05. The way I see it, after the election in '08, without a troop withdrawal from Iraq and some compromise on the nuclear issue and more amiable economic relations the world over AND some movement on environmental and human rights issues, 2009 will be a tough year.

Beyond this...

Russia is PISSED about Iran. Read the news. Putin, indirectly, but openly, compared US foreign policy and military power to that of Fascist Germany. The Soviets didn't declare war on Germany until late in 1944, but they resisted the advance of the Nazis for years at Stalingrad. So, Putin's statement, in concert with Russian history, shows that Russia will resist the type of power they perceive coming out of Washington.

One further note on the attacks of 9|11 and 7|7. It is reasonable to believe that some empowered person within, to further certain political or economic ends, permitted or assisted in the execution of these attacks. Often, I have called this "playing both sides against the middle."

Many among the power elite benefited from the 9|11 attacks: gold commodity values went through the roof, shorted shares for each airline involved paid off, the insurance policies on WTC1 and 2 and 7 all paid out to one person. The timing of the attacks, in relation to two American elections and the G8 Summit at Gleneagles, Scotland in 2005, further supports the theory that someone is pushing an agenda. Something happens in some rotten corner of the world, requiring a distraction inside the G8 that permits a correction to go unnoticed, or, it acts as a pretext for "strong, decisive action."

Remember the British sailors captured off of the Iraqi/Iranan coast? They were returned at Easter as a show of good faith. Had they not been returned, it was a potential pretext for war. The same pretext used by Israel in attacking Lebanon in 2006. The notion that Downing Street and Pennsylvania Ave. had conspired together in this gambit was discussed. Apparently the President of an "evil" nation managed to steal the moral high ground.

Whether such an agenda is engagement in Iraq for war profiteering or for oil revenues or simply to tip the scales in favor of one unnamed power centre over another (I'm thinking the Stonecutters or the Freemasons, or the Illuminati here), it doesn't matter. In the final analysis, change still requires a strength that simply does not exist in the world. At least not yet. When peace is profitable, when an even distribution of wealth is profitable, there might be change.

Remember, and I keep saying it, America is NOT the WORLD. It is the things that America does elsewhere that brings the shitstorm home. It is not the shit that happens in America that makes things go bad for the world.