"The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races...and by the establishment of a world republic in which everywhere the Jews will exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this New World Order the Children of Israel...will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition..." (Karl Marx in a letter to Baruch Levy, quoted in Review de Paris, June 1, 1928, p. 574)

Sunday, 24 February 2008

Neo-Fascist Pigs In Space

Full Spectrum Dominance has always been the agenda for the Globalists

The London Independent today carries the headline "SPACE: AMERICA'S NEW WAR ZONE". It has, however, long been a globalist neoconservative agenda to weaponize, fully militarize and aggressively control space in order to achieve what they refer to as "full spectrum dominance" over the entirety of the planet Earth.

In order to understand what the world will be like in 25-30 years and how the new world order will micromanage the entire globe, this is the area that needs to be studied now. In this two part study I will break down how total militarization of space is the agenda to be implemented and how this will provide the final piece in the jigsaw for the globalist vision of a one world order on the planet.

President Bush has recently signed a new National Space Policy that rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit U.S. flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone "hostile to U.S. interests."

The document, the first full revision of overall space policy in 10 years, asserts that the US government has the right to conduct whatever research, development and "other activities" in space that it deems necessary for its own national interests.

"Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power," the policy asserts in its introduction.

It says the US's priorities are to "strengthen the nation's space leadership" and to enable "unhindered US operations in and through space to defend our interests there". But the policy also claims that national security is "critically" dependent upon space capabilities. As a result it calls on the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, to "develop and deploy space capabilities that sustain US advantage and support defence and intelligence transformations".

This is nothing new as The DOD has been developing weapons for space for years, often under the guise that the weapons systems are purely defensive. A little research reveals that is 180 degrees from the truth. Ballistic missile defense systems or components of the "missile defense shield" are based on science fiction and have consistently failed, leading many experts to seriously question the credibility of the program and ask whether it may simply be a fraudulent cover for an aggressive offensive program to weaponize space.

In order to find the real motive behind the push into space, one only has to examine the rhetoric of its proponents and the projections contained within policy documents. Again and again it is made plain that its real purpose is not for defense, but for global power projection.

In recent years some nations have called for talks to ban the deployment of weapons in space. Currently the deployment of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction are prohibited by the 1967 United Nations Outer Space Treaty.

When proposals to ban the weaponisation of space have been put forward at the UN, the United States has routinely abstained. But last October the US voted against a UN resolution calling for the banning of weapons in space.

The long standing globalist space policy mirrors the neoconservative doctrine of military preemption and unilateral actions. The latest policy document is just the latest in a long line of predecessors.

On December 13th 2001, Bush confirmed that the US would be withdrawing from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, the main purpose of the ABM was to prohibit the development, testing and deployment of sea-based, air-based, space-based and ground-based ABM systems regardless of the technology used. Whilst Russian President Vladimir Putin described the move as simply “a mistake”, 33 members of Congress, headed by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich maintained that the treaty is still legally alive and proceeded to put together a law suit against President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The suit charged that the scrapping of the ABM Treaty by Bush

"…violates the treaty power in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution and "is inconsistent with two centuries of practice and with the overall design of separation of powers and checks and balances of the Constitution.” Furthermore, the complaint charges, "Since treaties have the status of laws, the President's proposed termination of the ABM Treaty without the assent of Congress violates Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution, which obliges the President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Bush's attempt to withdraw from the ABM Treaty not only violates the US Constitution. It also violates international law and Article XV of the ABM Treaty itself. Article XV, paragraph 2, of the Treaty states that either nation may withdraw giving six months' notice "if extraordinary events related to the subject matter of this treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests."

The events of September 11th 2001, whilst having nothing to do with vulnerabilities to ballistic missiles, provided a mandate for the assertion of US power with space weapons at its core. This is evident in a secret Pentagon planning report that was leaked to the New York Times in March of 2002 entitled ‘Nuclear Posture Review’. The classified text provides a snapshot of a world view transformed by 9/11. It refers to a "New Triad," which it describes as comprising the "offensive strike leg," (nuclear and conventional forces) plus "active and passive defenses,"(Ballistic Missile Defense [BMD] systems and other defenses) and "a responsive defense infrastructure" (the ability to develop and produce nuclear weapons and resume nuclear testing). The report also makes it clear that BMD is not for defending the US from surprise missile attacks; rather its main purpose is to secure “freedom of action”:

"Advances in defensive technologies will allow U.S. non-nuclear and nuclear capabilities to be coupled with active and passive defenses to help provide deterrence and protection against attack, preserve U.S. freedom of action, and strengthen the credibility of U.S. alliance commitments.'

In other words, the US DoD wishes to make easily possible the ability to deploy troops anywhere without the risk of sustaining unacceptable repercussions. As the Western States Legal Foundation have suggested:

"The fear is not that there will be a surprise attack on the US but rather that when either threatened or under attack by US forces, an adversary might be able to prevent an attack or force a US withdrawal by using weapons of mass destruction against US or allied troops or against US or allied civilian populations."

On June 1st Bush gave a speech to the West Point military Academy that officially committed the US to a doctrine of permanent pre-emptive warfare against any state, citing a “conflict between good and evil” and asserting that "the war on terror will not be won on the defensive."

In the same month it was announced in a briefing by Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers that there was to be a merger between the US Space Command and the US Strategic Command. Donald Rumsfeld commented:

"it's our intention to merge two of our major unified commands -- the U.S. Space Command the U.S. Strategic Command -- into a single entity that will be responsible for both early warning of, and defense against, missile attack as well as long-range conventional attacks."

Such a unified Command would therefore integrate strategic nuclear missiles with Ballistic Missile Defense, enabling such pre-emptive warfare to be carried out. Thus is revealed the true rationale behind the rush to scrap the ABM Treaty and deploy missile defense systems.

The Bush Administration explicitly laid out these revelations together in its September 2002 publication National Security Strategy of the United States, which is akin to a guidebook for global domination, asserting that “the best defense is offense”. The publication’s main points are summarized as follows:

• “The US National Security Strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests.”
• “It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength.”
• “To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.”

Of course, the US proved its point with the invasion of Iraq in April 2003. At the same time at the National Space Symposium in Colorado, Air Force Col. Robert Kent Traylor, deputy director of space operations and integration at the Missile Defense Agency, gave a speech in which he said that the pre-invasion assaults on Iraq from the air had proved the value of counter air operations as a vital element in missile defense. He went on to say that missile-defense planners needed to start thinking about pre-emptive strikes on missile fields as a key element of missile defense, and that "The Air Force views active missile defense as a missed opportunity for counter-air operations."

Such merging of BMD with the pre-emptive unilateral posture reveals it as one cog in the overall quest for global military superiority.

Perhaps the most revealing in the series of defense policy documents is a report released by the extremely influential and powerful “neo-conservative” think Tank, The Project For A New American Century (PNAC). Released in September 2000, before George W Bush became the 43rd President, Rebuilding America’s Defenses represented the doctrine of luminaries such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. All would go on to take up positions of primary importance within the Bush Administration so it is quite safe to assume the validity of the report’s recommendations to the incoming regime. Indeed, when comparing the report with the National Security Strategy of two years later, one finds that its recommendations are being made official policy. The report indiscriminately calls for US Military dominance and control of global economic markets and reveals missile defense as a core element in this goal:

" In the post-Cold War era, America and its allies…have become the primary objects of deterrence and it is states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea who most wish to develop deterrent capabilities. Projecting conventional military forces…will be far more complex and constrained when the American homeland…is subject to attack by otherwise weak rogue regimes capable of cobbling together a miniscule ballistic missile force. Building an effective…system of missile defenses is a prerequisite for maintaining American preeminence."

Here we have yet another instance where weapons as "defenses" are cited as a prerequisite to prevent other states from deterring the US from attacking them preemptively. Even more chilling is the fact that the report states that such ultimate dominance and control will likely be a long process “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” This event, although having nothing to do with the threat of ballistic missiles, occurred around one year after the publication of the PNAC report.

The rush to deploy BMD is not a defensive move, it is indeed intended to provide, as US air force Lt. Col. Robert Bowman stated almost 25 years ago, “the missing link to a first strike capability”. Bowman quit the original Regan "Star Wars" project when he realized it had nothing to do with defense and everything to do with total planetary military dominance. Bowman is now a key activist against the space policy and the neoconservative globalist agenda in general.

Advocates of a BMD system should be made aware of this true purpose. Furthermore advocates of a limited ground-based BMD should be made aware of the long term goals of the permanent preemptive war footing described here. BMD is not to be separated from the so called ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’; it is an integral cog in a larger machine to achieve what has been termed ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’. If one reads further the revealing PNAC report, the following alarming statement is to be found: “No system of missile defenses can be fully effective without placing sensors and weapons in space.”

The next part of this study will outline the shocking quest to turn the serene environment of space into the new “Warfighter’s Edge”.

Neo-Fascist Pigs In Space: Part Two

Neo-Fascist Pigs In Space: Part Two
Space really is "the final frontier" for the Neo-fascist US crime syndicate

The Agenda behind the "defense focused" space policy signed by President Bush earlier this week is nothing to do with defense and everything to do with weaponizing space and having the ability to preemptively attack any nation or population on the planet.

A fourth medium for warfare is emerging. At present there are no weapons in space but very soon that may no longer be the case and within just a few years we could see weapons that can fight from, in and through space. There is no agreed upon set of international rules to oversee the development or ban the deployment of non-WMD space weapons, only The Outer Space Treaty (1967) Bans nuclear weapon test explosions, or any other nuclear explosion in the atmosphere or outer space, along with The Partial Test Ban Treaty (1963) and a smattering of UN resolutions over the past two decades that have called for the use of space for peaceful purposes only. Consequently, only weapons of mass destruction are banned from space, leaving the possibility for deployment of anti-satellite weapons, space-based lasers or any of the other space weapons being researched and developed.

The motive for militarizing space has been clearly advanced in internal policy documents. Both the US SPACECOM documents Vision for 2020 (1996) and the Long Range Plan (1998) outlined a new military vision to dominate the space dimension and integrate space forces, in order to acquire "full spectrum dominance." Presented like comic books, these two documents are anything but humorous entertainment, as the Mission Statement of the Vision document demonstrates:

"US Space Command—dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into Warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict."

There is no pretence of the spread of democracy or the betterment of humanity, the sole purpose of space domination is to enable continued military and economic superiority for the power elite in the US. This is made clear in a telling comparison: “During the rise of sea commerce, nations built navies to protect and enhance their commercial interests.”

Furthermore any progressive ideas of addressing poverty and economic imbalance in the world are simply and swiftly dismissed:
"The globalisation of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots.’...space superiority is emerging as an essential element of battlefield success and future warfare."

So in essence the so called “have-nots” need to be kept downtrodden in order for the power elite in control of the US and the world economy to remain absolutely dominant. The mission objectives of “Control of Space” and “Global Engagement” expose the space policy as one part of an offensive strategy of dominance. The goal is to “Assure Access” for US agencies and companies, whilst having the ability to “Destroy, Disrupt, Delay, Degrade, Deny” any other nation’s use of space should it be required. Furthermore:

"Global Engagement is the application of precision force from, to and through space. USSPACECOM will have a greatly expanded role as an active warfighter in the years ahead as the combatant command responsible for National Missile Defense and space force application. Global Engagement combines global surveillance with the potential for a space based global precision strike capability."

So when the Bush administration talks about space policy as defensive, this is just a miniscule part of the wider picture which will incorporate world wide surveillance and the ability to strike wherever and whenever instantaneously. Upon retiring in 1996, General Joseph Ashy of Space Command had this to say:

“It's politically sensitive, but it's going to happen. Some people don't want to hear this, and it sure isn't in vogue, but -- absolutely -- we're going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space. That's why the U.S. has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms”
(Gen. Joseph Ashy, Aviation Week & Space Technology, August 5 1996, p 51)

There is no mincing of words here and many who read them will find them startling. There are several other policy documents that contain similar rhetoric:

A stance this aggressive and offensive by a small group of elite power hungry people in pursuit of superiority and dominance militarily and commercially needs to be called what it is, and it is FASCISM. Many have simply cited the fact that the US “won the Cold War” and so for them this makes world dominance by a cabal embedded in the military and the government acceptable. When that failed to stand up to sustained scrutiny, the “war on terror” made it acceptable; for this analysis neither is adequate.

In January 2001 one giant leap was made for weapons in space. The Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, which was chaired by none other than the then “bipartisan” citizen Donald Rumsfeld (again), concluded:

"The Commissioners believe the U.S. Government should vigorously pursue the capabilities called for in the National Space Policy to ensure that the President will have the option to deploy weapons in space to deter threats to and, if necessary, defend against attacks on U.S. interests…In order to extend its deterrence concepts and capabilities to space, the US will require development of new military capabilities for operation to, from, in and through space."

The idea that any other nation could carry out such a surprise attack on US space assets is ludicrous. It has spent more militarily than all the other nations on the planet put together, boats the ability to fight precision wars with minimal casualties, and has intelligence gathering and reconnaissance capabilities tens of years ahead of the nearest rival. In light of this it seems that the completely different low tech attack of 9/11 was simply too opportunistic to pass up for Rumsfeld et al who rather sickeningly on the very day used the unrelated deaths of almost three thousand innocent people to justify the deployment of space weapons. In an attack on Senator Levin, who had previously bravely dared to question the legality of missile defense, Rumsfeld declared:

"…you and other Democrats in Congress have voiced fear that you simply don’t have enough money for the large increase in defense that the Pentagon is seeking, especially for missile defense, and you fear that you’ll have to dip into the Social Security funds to pay for it. Does this sort of thing convince you that an emergency exists in this country to increase defense spending, to dip into Social Security, if necessary, to pay for defense spending—increase defense spending?"

Six months after the release of the new Rumsfeld report, General Ralph Eberhart, former North American Aerospace Defense Command & US Space Command chief, and head of NORTHCOM for Homeland Security, went before Congress and asserted that

"It is time to push up the ‘space superiority throttle.’ We have left this throttle at a low power setting for too long. We must ensure our continued access to space, to deny space to others when directed…This is a medium crucial to our American military operations and one we’ll have to fight for in the future."

Since this time the Air Force has established a Space Warfare Center , a new Space Operation Directorate , created the 527th Space Aggressor Squadron and the 76th Space Control Squadron to develop and test U.S. space planning and systems. Also, major wargames, such as Schriever I , have been run simulating tension and conflict in space. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that weaponizing and fighting in, from and through space is on the agenda.

The facts make the rhetoric even more frightening. Most of the systems currently being developed have the capability to be used as Anti-Satellite (ASAT) weapons. Whilst it is highly questionable whether the systems could immediately work to intercept missiles, they could be much more effective against satellites which travel slower and on much more predictable orbits. Furthermore, the upgraded X-Band radars on the ground could track satellites in orbit. The element of surprise would not factor as it would if the US were under missile attack, and countermeasures would not need to be deciphered.

Deployment will enabled ground based interceptors the ability to launch kill vehicles into space which can then operate independently and use optical and infrared sensors to track and destroy satellites. The Aegis sea based upgrades will allow ASAT capabilities against satellites no matter where they are in their orbit.

The longer term components of space weaponry also have ASAT capabilities. The Air-borne laser is intended for a 747 jet and so must have the capability to fire upwards at a missile in it’s mid course phase or as it re-enters the atmosphere, therefore it also has the ability to fire at a satellite for longer as it moves slower. The Space Based Laser, although years away from readiness, is intended for Low Earth Orbit for boost-phase defense. There are though, several instances of officials (presumably eagerly awaiting the SBL) stating how it could be used for purposes other then defense

Air Force Col. William N. McCasland, system program director for the SBL in 2001, stated that it could be used for the following:
"defense/offensive counter space operations" (i.e., anti-satellite missions); "deny access to space" (for example, knocking out enemy launchers as they blast off); "deny flow of information to/from satellite" (perhaps using low-power beams to disrupt rather than destroy a satellite); "defense/offensive counter-air operations"; and knocking out high-altitude aircraft, cruise missiles, or unmanned aerial vehicles.

Other proposed space-based components are kinetic kill vehicles to be deployed on orbiting satellites. The first inroads towards this are now being made; a test satellite called the "Near Field Infrared Experiment was launched in 2004. The purpose of NFIRE is to conduct tests and retrieve data on exhaust fumes of rockets in space, this information will be used to help future space kill vehicles recognize missiles from their plumes. However, as the Moscow Times has reported:

"…NFIRE is itself weaponized, carrying a projectile-packed "kill vehicle" that can destroy passing missiles -- or the satellites of the United States' military and commercial rivals…This marks the first time in history that any nation has put a weapon in space, despite America's still-official policy against such a practice. And as Pentagon officials made clear in an eye-opening presentation to Congress in February, NFIRE's test is just the first spark of a conflagration that will soon set the heavens ablaze with American weaponry capable of striking -- and destroying -- any spot on earth. As one top Pentagon official -- opposed to this lunatic proliferation, thus remaining anonymous -- said: "We're crossing the Rubicon into space weaponization."

Two further documents are worthy of mention where space weaponization is concerned. A research report produced for the chief of staff of the Airforce in 1996 is replete with information. According to this study, a space based laser could

"…successfully attack ground or airborne targets by melting or cracking cockpit canopies, burning through control cables, exploding fuel tanks, melting or burning sensor assemblies and antenna arrays, exploding or melting munitions pods, destroying ground communications and power grids, and melting or burning a large variety of strategic targets (e.g. dams, industrial and defense facilities and munitions factories) -- all in a fraction of a second. "

And secondly, a February 2004 report, the US Air Force Transformation Flight Plan, (which incidentally features a huge gleaming sword on its cover) documents several research programs from anti-satellite lasers to weapons that "would provide the capability to strike ground targets anywhere in the world from space." including the firing of 100kg tungsten bolts from space.

Earlier this year it was revealed that the Pentagon was seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from Congress to test and develop new space weapons.

It is patently clear from Government policy documents, research papers, Commission Reports, Army War College documents and news reports that any idea of a limited form of space defense system has far and away been surpassed. The weaponization of space for power projection and unilateral military dominance of the earth by elitist power brokers has serious implications. It is clearly in conflict with the peaceful progression of all mankind, which is commonly associated with space use by those who do not explore the policy documents.

Remember the motto of the US Space Command where others’ possible use of space is concerned “Destroy, Disrupt, Delay, Degrade, Deny.”

The fallout of the longstanding aggressive globalist space policy will be an inevitable build up of arms as China and Russia race to stay with the US. The effect of such arms build ups is a transformation of nuclear weapons from more secure tactical deterrence weapons into more aggressive, more diverse, more dangerous usable weapons. Some may argue that nuclear weapons are dangerous anyway, yet when you factor in the possibility of defenses against them the nature of those weapons changes dramatically.

There are many other branches to the neo-fascist space vision. Two are worthy of brief citation. The ECHELON program; a vast spy network of computers and satellites already in operation, (some at the key Ballistic Missile Defense early warning bases) that will inevitably be used in conjunction with the space-based projections discussed in this study.

Also the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is worthy of study as it too is part of the overall space based warfighter’s vision. HAARP fires the upper atmosphere with a focused and steerable electromagnetic beam, to heat the ionosphere, the electrically-charged sphere surrounding Earth's upper atmosphere. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto Earth and penetrate everything-living and dead. HAARP publicity gives the impression that the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program is mainly an academic project with the goal of changing the ionosphere to improve communications for our own good. However, other US military documents put it more clearly: HAARP aims to learn how to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes". In either case it advocates artificially altering the planet’s atmosphere.

Weaponization of space will mean more weapons proliferation, greater risk of accidents, increased likelihood of pre-emptive action and ultimately war in space. in addition it will allow total surveillance of everyone and everything with the added option of taking out any target instantly, no matter how big or small. It also involves permanently changing the climate of the planet. Welcome to the new world order in space.

The cabal in power in the US that has set about treaty busting in order to openly weaponize space and unilaterally seek continued global military dominance at the cost of peaceful progressive efforts, needs to be made accountable. Congress and the Senate need be populated with those who represent the concerns of ordinary people, rather than those who represent the concerns of such globalists. Clearly many of the Commissions and advisory panels set up to review the need for missile defenses and protection space assets have had conflicts of interest. The government (both Republican and Democratic parties) and the military in the US have been infested with representatives of the Neo-Conservative think tanks and foundations who have long openly called for global military dominance. It seems that any middle ground stance is no longer acceptable; as one critic has put it, “The only moral position to hold in such a circumstance is outright opposition to unilateralist theories of planetary dominance.”

This two part presentation is an adaption of a dissertation Steve Watson wrote for his MA in International Relations.



Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home