The real Regime Change...

Richard K. Moore, Cyberjournal, 30 October 2002

Friends,

Much is being said these days about regime changes. The fact is that ‘;regime change’ has been standard operating procedure for the USA from its very birth. The Revolutionary War was essentially a regime change at the top, with local and state affairs proceeding with considerable continuity. The Civil War was a regime change forced on the Southern states by Eastern financial elites, who wanted policies which favored industrialization over cotton. In the Phillipines, in Panama, in Brazil, Chile, Iran, Iraq, Korea... everywhere you look all over the globe the USA has been changing regimes—or preventing regimes from being changed—for centuries. That's always been the standard imperialist modus operandi, in contrast to Britain's colonial-administration approach. The American approach is more cost effective.

If someone thinks of 'regime change' as a new approach, invented for Saddam, then they are buying into the centuries of lies about benevolent intervention. If 'regime change' is presented in the media as a new approach, then that means only that regime changes will now be overt. Evidently the political climate has been created, post 9-11, so that overt regime changes are deemed to be 'acceptable' to the American people.

It may seem strange that something is considered 'acceptable', when hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets in cities all across America to protest. The largest since the Vietnam era. But it's not so strange when you realize that it is not public opinion that matters, but only the _image of public opinion that is projected on the TV networks. On those channels (even PBS) the protests were presented as being insignificant. Meanwhile, they bombard us with pro-war propaganda of many varieties, some overtly fiction and some not.

So the impending regime-change of Saddam is not new policy, but only new rhetoric. But there IS a regime change underway which is of a new and different kind. In fact there are two, a minor one and a major one. The MINOR one is the change in the domestic USA political system. It has changed from what pretended to be 'liberal democracy', to something which is rapidly approaching overt fascism. This is a very revolutionary change, a shift from what had been the norm—since the birth of republics during the Enlightenment era.

The MAJOR regime change is the shift in the international order. We are shifting from the regime of international law and treaties, to a regime in which the strongest bullies—the USA, UK, and Israel—can basically run the world the same way mafia bosses run their territories. This regime-change process began with Desert Storm, developed further in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, and is now nearing completion in Desert Storm II.

If it were simply a matter of Bush wanting to grab Iraq's oil, he'd just go ahead and do it and let the UN & Europeans wring their hands in futility. He waits for some kind of official approvals for a particular reason. He may or may not understand that reason himself, but those who make policy certainly do.

One of the primary objectives of Desert Storm II, I suggest, is to consolidate the 'legitimacy' of this post-international-law regime. (What some call the NWO). Whenever some kind of resolutions appear (from the UN and also from Congress) which can be interpreted (or misinterpreted) so as to provide legitimacy—then the onslaught will begin. If bombs must be set off in Bali, or Senators assassinated, in order to create a 'climate of legitimacy', then that must be done. As Kissinger put it, commenting on a similar scenario, You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

[...]

Best regards,
rkm