posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:30 PM
I do see something sinister when our moral integrity is insulted by such a statement as the very title page. "IT EXPLAINS WHY WE’RE GOING TO
WAR, AND WHY WE’LL KEEP GOING TO WAR."
That is a defense contractor and financier dream come true, total stability in planning for war without the uncertainty of any Mother Theresa bursting
You could seriously reconsider when the powers that be, the financiers, and the military as its pawns, would change their world view within such a
picture of globalization. One would have to persuade many people on the merits about such plans as Buckminster Fuller and his World Game, for example.
Consider putting that into practice, while enforcing simple laws on the uncivilized, rather than annihilating them because of their detestable
practices such as female "circumcision." You could try some new Valium in the water supply even Lithium to induce a new kind of Quaker ideal
incorporated by the Islamics on their own terms. You could inform yourself and the Islamics, that their deepest faith was hijacked by the British,
with Wahhab at the helm within the earlier plan to destroy the Ottomans. Their tolerant Empire was replaced with a kind of Jim Jones fundamentalism,
in many places. Above all read "Confessions of a British Spy," to detect the fraud that continues. Repeal some laws, so you do not have to introduce
violence to enforce unworkable tyrannies.
Curiously the earlier Report From Iron Mountain On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace, considers inevitability of war, and how we are totally
dependent upon it for our economy. The Pentagon's New Map puts that book introduced as "science fiction," on steroids but leaves the sensitive
topics such as "reintroducing slavery," to the imagination. Already you need your chip and pass or you are not allowed to live in some places when
I could go on and on why even his basic premise about terrorism is laughably dependent upon major news outlet views that are ostensibly refuted with
the most rigorous Google search for this 911 fraud. Our government clings to that story while producing policies from that false set of premises. A
thinking person therefore cannot accept the raison de entrée from it.
Surely it gives us a visual framework, but so does National Geographic Magazine. His only problem is the lack of color pictures from the latter, and
substituting a horrendous future from his basic premise of how good unending war will be. People who already own us may like it because it puts their
hooks into us even more strongly, but any freedom loving person would be appalled totally. We would like to keep at least our illusion of freedom. As
a futurist, I have to reject his positions as untenable and ill conceived. The most basic future studies indicate no positions set in concrete, they
are at best heuristic, a matter of flexibility, through continuous examination of concurrently workable outlooks. One may set policy in
concrete, but it will fail unless there is some give, and further structure support. Contingency planning itself does not set its feet in any one
outlook and succeed. Key words are "perception, evaluation, and control." Preordination is not a viable hallmark of future studies, you do not set a
juggernaut and watch the Leviathan roll. Leaders change their minds when things do not work, although sometimes far too late for the astute among
I could elaborate and pick his thesis apart bit by bit, to even better favor a less dysfunctional Pentagon, but that would require more time and equal
research dollars. The man will not debate anyone with opposing views insofar as I am aware, if you know different let me know.
[edit on 29-12-2004 by SkipShipman]