< < <
Date Index
> > >
Re: A SECRET blueprint for US global domination
by Devlen, Balkan (UMC-Student)
29 April 2003 01:06 UTC
< < <
Thread Index
> > >
With all due respect to Prof. Prugovecki I would like to make few comments 
about his post. Let me make some point clear about my first post on PNAC.When I 
say I dont wanna sound cycnical I am serious about it because I think it isnot 
that hard to reach those information and it does not require "priviliged 
position in recieving special intellegence". All you have to do is search and 
read from time to time websites of think tanks and magazines that do not 
reflect your own worldview. Since I was a senior in university in Turkey ( and 
my major is IR) in 2000 I try to read articles and opinions on foreign policy, 
especially on US Foreign Policy not only from critical scholar but also from 
very main-stream conservative ones. That provides me a comprehensive picture of 
what is going on in world politics. And as everybody knew those reports are not 
secret, all of them are available for download in their respective websites. 
One only has to have interest and a non-biased view towards information in 
order to be aware of those opinions. So I think Prof. Prugovecki's "otherwise 
well-informed colleagues" do not spend enough time for reading what other 
people wrote, especially if they are considered in the "enemy camp". I was 
sincere while asking is it realy secret coz I think Prof. Prugovecki is being 
cynical by putting "secret" there in order to point out people that they were 
there more than 3 years now. On the Harun Yahya ( a.k.a Adnan Hoca) piece. 
Sorry if I am going to offend anyone by saying this but my time is valuable and 
I wont spent it for even making plausible arguments against a piece of crap 
written by a fundamentalist psycho. I am Turkish and I am fully aware of what 
kind of scandals that man is involved. Sorry but I wont take the word of a man 
who watches his followers while they are making sex, serious. I dont know 
whether how many people here would take seriously if an article is written by a 
head of a fundamentalist christian sect who argues that whole science of 
biology and anthropology is nonsense. I think being anti-american and/or 
anti-Israeli can not be a sufficient reason to take some one's arguments into 
consideration. That is a very dangerous position and the Left in 
pre-revolutionary Iran learned that lesson very tragically. They side with 
fundamentalists against Shah but in the end they are the ones who were purged 
in the first stages of revolution. In my opinion it is very dangerous to hail 
anything that is "anti-systemic" just because it is against the hegemon and her 
allies. I agree with Prof. Progovecki in the sense that world-system scholars 
have a great opportunity to test their claims against emprical evidence which 
is present now but again I do not think that thats my job, as I do not consider 
myself as a praticioner of world-system perspective but a curious student of 
political science who tries to see the issues from all angles including 
world-systems perspective.
best regards,
Balkan Devlen

        -----Original Message----- 
        From: E. Prugovecki [mailto:prugovecki@laguna.com.mx] 
        Sent: Mon 4/28/2003 5:17 PM 
        To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu 
        Cc: Richard Ragland 
        Subject: Re: A SECRET blueprint for US global domination
        The Sunday Herald article reproduced on 
http://www.sundayherald.com/27735, to which Richard Ragland referred in his 
April 26, 2003 post " A SECRET blueprint for US global domination" as being 
"quite interesting," is the one to which I drew attention in my April 1, 2003 
post with exactly the same title.

        I expected at that time that a serious discussion would follow, since 
the document prepared for Bush et al by the American think-tank Project For The 
New American Century (PNAC) can be downloaded from


        and it goes to the very heart of what WSN should be concerned with: 
blueprints for new world systems - which in this case is one for absolute US 
global domination.

        Instead, the only posted reactions consisted of information about the 
above website, and the following comment from a University of Missouri-Columbia 
Ph.D. student named Balkan Devlin, who wrote:

        "I dont wanna sound cynical but is that [PNAC] really SECRET ??? I dont 
think so..you can even checkout Wolfowitz's memo for DoD in 1992 (I think) 
where he talks about similiar stuff. I am not American but even I am aware of 
those reports and PNAC since 2000."

        I believe that the language of this comment speaks for itself. 
Nevertheless, I checked with knowledgeable academic colleagues and other 
people, and found out that what is so extremely well-known to Mr. Devlin is not 
known to a lot of other otherwise well-informed people. Maybe Mr. Devlin is in 
the privileged position of having access to special intelligence sources, but 
that doesn't seem to be the case with people in general.
        I was even more astounded when Mark Douglas Whitaker 
<mrkdwhit@wallet.com> posted on April 22, 2003 an article on the related 
subject "The Project for an Israeli Century," and the only response was an ad 
hominem attack (again from "Devlen, Balkan  (UMC-Student)" <bdff5@mizzou.edu>) 
on the writer of that article - instead of a reasoned analysis, with 
refutations or confirmations of the points raised in the article itself.

        I therefore asked myself: Are there no serious political scientists 
and/or other types of social scientists who subscribe to WSN, and who can 
devote to these most crucial issues the attention they deserve?
        It seems to me that those who contribute regularly to WSN cannot see 
the forest for the trees: they discuss specific incidents and devote a lot of 
attention to particulars, but when presented with a blueprint for global 
domination, they seem incapable of presenting any analyses with viable 
suggestions, projections, or even reasoned conjectures.

        Hence let me recapitulate here, from my last post, that PNAC:

                1. Supports a "blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, 
precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international 
security order in line with American principles and interests." This "American 
grand strategy" must be advanced for "as far into the future as possible," the 
report says. It also calls for the US to "fight and decisively win multiple, 
simultaneous major theatre wars" as a "core mission."
                2. Refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective 
and efficient means of exercising American global leadership."
                3. Describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American 
political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."
                4. Reveals worries in the administration that Europe could 
rival the USA.
                5. Says "even should Saddam pass from the scene" bases in Saudi 
Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently -- despite domestic opposition in the 
Gulf regimes to the stationing of US troops -- as "Iran may well prove as large 
a threat to US interests as Iraq has."
                6. Spotlights China for "regime change" saying "it is time to 
increase the presence of American forces in Southeast Asia". This, it says, may 
lead to "American and allied power providing the spur to the process of 
democratization in China"
                7. Calls for the creation of "US Space Forces", to dominate 
space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the 
Internet against the US.
                8. Hints that, despite threatening war against Iraq for 
developing weapons of mass destruction, the US may consider developing 
biological weapons -- which the nation has banned -- in decades to come. It 
says: "New methods of attack -- electronic, 'non-lethal', biological -- will be 
more widely available ... combat likely will take place in new dimensions, in 
space, cyberspace, and perhaps the world of microbes ... advanced forms of 
biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform 
biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
                9. Pinpoints North Korea, Libya, Syria and Iran as dangerous 
regimes and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide 
command-and-control system."

        My comments:

        a) With regard to #1, George Kennan - who was head of U.S. State 
Department Planning during the Truman administration, and authored the doctrine 
of "containing" the Soviet Union that determined U.S. policy throughout the 
Cold War, stated in 1948:
                "We [Americans] have about 60 per cent of the world's wealth 
but only 6.3 per cent of its population. Our real task in the coming period 
(will be) to maintain this position of disparity. We need not deceive ourselves 
that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction ... The day is 
not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The 
less we are hampered then by idealistic slogans the better." (Emphasis added)

        PNAC carries into the 21st century George Kennan's 1948 policy 

        b) With regard to #2, in today's (April 28, 2003) online issue of 
Xinhua News Agency (www.xionhuanet.com) there is an article entitled "Blair 
warns France of its vision for Europe," in which one can read the following:
                 "LONDON, April 28 (Xinhuanet) -- British Prime Minister Tony 
Blair on Monday
        challenged France over the future of the transatlantic relationship, 
warning that French President Jacques Chirac's vision of Europe as a rival to 
the United States is dangerously destabilizing.
                "I do not want Europe setting itself up in opposition to 
America. I think it will be dangerous and destabilizing," Blair said in an 
interview with the British business daily, Financial Times.
                "France wanted a multipolar world with different centers of 
power, but "I believe that they will very quickly develop into rival centers of 
power," Blair told the paper."

        Of course, what Mr. Blair wants is exactly what Mr. Bush wants - and 
all of that is spelled out by PNAC, which severely condemns "rival centers of 
power." According to PNAC, there should be one and only one center of power on 
this entire planet, and that one should, of course, be located in U.S.A.!

        PNAC presents WSN political scientists with the unique opportunity of 
carrying out a comparative analysis of how a blueprint for achieving world 
domination is being carried out right now in practice. But they seem to be 
totally ignoring this unique opportunity.

        I am a quantum physicist, with no inside knowledge or deeper insights 
into how the recommendations of PNAC are being implemented behind the scenes. 
But shouldn't the WSN social scientists be presenting regular analyses of such 
topics? And should they not publish their conclusions wherever and whenever 
they can, so as to alert the world public to the danger facing us all?

        Today Iraq, and tomorrow Syria, then Iran, after that perhaps North 
Korea, then Libya, and after that ... ??? When will be the turn of China, 
Venezuela, Brazil, Cuba, etc.? And what will become of France, Germany, Russia, 
etc.? How long until the entire world will have the pleasure of experiencing 
the US style of "freedom and democracy," the way the native peoples of North 
America have experienced it? (Cf. American Holocaust by D. E. Stannard)

        Or maybe I'm wrong, and there are no social scientists who subscribe to 
WSN and feel competent to deal with deeper issues.

        Eduard Prugovecki
        Professor Emeritus
        University of Toronto

< < <
Date Index
> > >
World Systems Network List Archives
at CSF
Subscribe to World Systems Network < < <
Thread Index
> > >