Insidious Imperialism: America, the Global Hegemon (2005)

Insidious Imperialism: America, the Global Hegemon

In the 21st century, many, many Americans are completely unaware that the United States is an Imperial country that acts as an Empire. “The deepest problems of modern life flow from the attempt of the individual to maintain the independence and individuality of his existence against the sovereign powers of society against the weight of the historical heritage and the external culture and technique of life,” explains George Simmel, author of The Metropolis and Mental Life. “The psychological foundation, upon which the metropolitan individuality is erected, is the intensification of emotional life due to the swift and continuous shift of external and internal stimuli.” Simmel means, the populace is too saturated within its own prism of self-reward.  This pretense is perpetuated by design.  He further expounds, “Man is a creature whose existence is dependent on indifference, i.e., his mind is stimulated by the difference between present impressions and those which have preceded.”  American’s indifference, due to intensification, has created two sets of mentalities within the populace; one either exhibits a blasΓ© demeanor, or one exhibits intellectualism. Simmel simply states, “The essence of the blasΓ© attitude is an indifference toward the distinctions between things: the mental attitude of the people of the metropolis to one another may be designated formally as one of reserve,” i.e., one who is blasΓ© is caught in the Matrix, in a loop, saturated by indifference to the world around one; or if one is intellectual, then one can see the incongruities by Bush and his cronies, therefore, research and questioning can take precedence.  Though currently, throughout the world, other countries see us as a global hegemon, which invades and occupies any country that we feel the need to impose/interject our view of democracy.  The great English Empire of the past, is what our country was founded on, i.e., invading, occupying, and conquering is what the colonial settlers did when the came ashore and met the Native American Indians.  The Natives befriended the settlers, and taught them how to survive off the land. They also taught the settlers about their government system, which is based on democracy/bipartisanship. These settlers took aspects that they liked and intertwined them into England’s Imperialistic tenets.  Surreptitiously, America was founded on Imperialism and sustained its tenets under democracy; the Jewish people had been subjected to extermination, as did the Africans, etc.  But, the Natives were the first North Americans to feel an Empire’s wrath, and thus, become extirpated too, because of racism, elitism, and religion.  Imperialism and Christianity are ideals that are used to control a society via fear and intimidation.  Hence, an Empire using religion to push an agendum that it wants, and as a consequence, that agendum is always beneficial to the minority of rich and powerful pious families. “There is no doubt in my mind there is a living God; and there is no doubt in my mind that Lord, Christ, was sent by the Almighty.  No doubt in my mind about that. Today’s ceremony, I bet you, for millions of people, was reaffirmation…and a way to make sure doubts don’t seep into your soul,” said President Bush at the service for the deceased Pope John Paul II, detailed in a Washington Post article: “Bush: Funeral a ‘Reaffirmation,” written on Saturday, April 9, 2005, by staff writer Jim VandeHei. “A lot of Christians gain strength and confidence from seeing His Holiness in the last stages of life,” as Bush expounded on his impromptu harangue, “I think a walk in faith constantly confronts doubt, as faith becomes more mature.”  Because “you constantly confront, you know, questions. My faith is strong; the Bible talks about; you got to constantly stay in touch with the word of God in order to help you on the walk.” His religious beliefs only underscore his idiocy as a “leader” since he appoints himself as “doing God’s work.” One can only assume that he was inferring that he was put here for the sole reason of spreading the “truth” around the world, in countries that do not yearn our religious and political tenets.  Regardless, this is very precarious for Americans and only reinforces all the tribulations in this administration. Thereby, “Society as a whole is more and more spitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other, the Bourgeoisie and Proletariat,” reads The Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.  Accordingly, underscoring the assertion that it never truly benefits most Americans, the majority, but rather, it benefits the already rich and powerful families, or, the minority, so that they become more saturated and more narcissistic. “The metropolis has always been the seat of money economy because the many-sidedness and concentration of commercial activity have given the medium of exchange an importance which it could not have acquired in the commercial aspects of rural life,” insists Simmel, “In certain apparently insignificant characteristics or traits of the most extreme aspects of life are to be found a number of characteristics mental tendencies; the modern mind has become more and more a calculating one.”  Furthermore, a term for these pious, upper elite and most powerful families that Empires originate from are called the Illuminati. The term Illuminati is the plural of the Latin, Illuminatus, which means “one who is illuminated.” Thus, it means “a person who has received the full extent of the commencement that is available through Freemasonry.” Freemasonry, defined by Wikipedia’s free encyclopedia, is “a worldwide fraternal organization; its members are joined by shared ideals of both a moral and metaphysical nature, and, in most of its branches, by a common belief in a Supreme Being.”  

Moreover,  “Freemasonry is an esoteric art, in that certain aspects of its internal work are not generally revealed to the public,” because “freemasonry uses an initiatory system of degrees to explore ethical and philosophical issues,” and “a peculiar system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols.” Microsoft Encarta defines the Illuminati as “Greek illumination, name given to those who submitted to Christian baptism. Those who were baptized were called illuminati or illuminated ones by the Ante-Nicene clergy, on the assumption that those who were instructed for baptism in the apostolic faith had an enlightened understanding.”  And today, the United States government, or the current administration, is deceitfully intertwining Christian based tenets into mainstream politics and eroding American’s civil liberties.  Religion is supposed to be separate from government; the separation of church and state is the only way to instill a bipartisan democratic government.  Democracy is “free and equal representation of people:  the free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the people,” defined by Encarta’s dictionary, furthermore, a democratic nation is “a country with a government that has been elected freely and equally by all its citizens.”  Unfortunately, this is not the case in America today.  The results of the last two elections in 2000, and 2004, were dubious in its execution, especially the last one, which was even more in question, then the one prior.  As a result, the Bush Faction and his Cronies are pushing a neo-conservative movement that promotes a doctrine titled, “Project for a New America Century,” or its acronym: PNAC.  Friedrich Nietzsche, defines this ideology of Imperialists in The Genealogy of Morals, first essay, “Good and Evil,” Good and Bad,” forebodingly.  “These bearers of the oppressive instincts that thirst for reprisal, the descendants of every kind of European and non-European slavery, and especially of the entire pre-Aryan populace—they represent the regression of mankind!”  This depicts and perpetuates Germany’s Nazi dogma, “fear of the blond beast at the core of all noble races and in being on one’s guard against it,” Nietzsche writes, i.e., contemporary Imperial design, thereby, implies that preemption is at the forefront, to keep other countries safe and thus, rule the world under one global power under the guise of democracy.  In addition, Nietzsche also emphasizes his other creeds about good and evil/good and bad; “The judgment of good did not originate with those to whom goodness was shown; rather it was the good themselves that is to say, the noble, powerful, high-stationed and high-minded, who felt and established themselves and their actions as good that is, of the first rank, in contradistinction to all the low, low-minded, common and plebeian,” thus, buttressing how one group, a minority in essence, oppresses the rest of the populace or the majority.  Yet, somehow, these labels are inverted, the rich are the minority and the poor are the majority. Expressed poignantly by Marx and Engels’ theories on capitalism in The Manifesto of the Communist Party.  They expound, “We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of along course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange,” and “Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class.” Therefore, capitalism segregates the community into two classes in society, the Bourgeoisie and the Proletarians or the rich and powerful, and the poor and overworked.  This system, in conjunction with intrusive religious undertones, has eroded the entire political system; and it’s continuing to condition the American populace, so that one reign of power can control, oppress, and subjugate the very people it was designed to protect.  Moreover, the United States is taking their ideals of nobility and superimposing them onto other societies in other countries. Nietzsche also contests this self-imposed righteous nobility; “The noble man, conceives the basic concept of good in advance and spontaneously out of himself and only then creates for himself an idea of bad,” additionally, “The two opposing values good and bad, good and evil have been engaged in a fearful struggle on earth for thousands of years; and there are still places where the struggle is as yet undecided.”  The United States as an entity is self-absorbed with their own version of right and wrong, good and evil, or good and bad, as Nietzsche profoundly asserted in The Genealogy of Morals, first essay.  Furthermore, the United States is mandating a social and verbal lobotomy across the world, its own version of man-made Natural Selection: mimicking Nature. “Let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has been shown to be,” writes Charles Darwin in, On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection. “Every slight modification, which in the course of ages, chanced to arise, and which in any way favored the individuals of any of the species, by better adapting them to their altered conditions, would tend to be preserved; and natural selection would thus have free scope for the work o improvement.”  The United States is the “single tree” that supplants itself into another country’s religious and political culture, to permeate its own self-serving, egoistic dogma’s.  

Insofar, what is being interposed is a neo-conservative movement, based on a doctrine titled, The Project for a New America Century, authored by the Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, which can be accessed on-line @, under the link, “Statement of Principles,” or  The doctrine reads, “American foreign and defense policy is adrift,” and conservatives are “criticized” to resisting “isolationist impulses from within their own ranks.” The conservatives “have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy, and they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.”  However, “We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership. Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?” It asks, and then resumes, “We are living off the capital—both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements—built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.  A foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad, and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.  Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But, we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests.”  The narcissism of this doctrine is disturbingly ostensible, and buttresses one of Nietzsche’s tenets; “One should be warned, moreover, against taking these concepts pure and impure too ponderously or broadly, not to say symbolically; all the concepts of ancient man were rather at first incredibly uncouth, coarse, external, narrow, straightforward, and altogether unsymbolical in meaning to a degree that we can scarcely conceive,” from The Genealogy of Morals.  Yet, the Wolfowitz doctrine ignorantly continues, “The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.”  It also lists four tenets of this “project;” one, “we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future,” two, “we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values,” three, “we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad,” and four, “we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.”  Many signatures for this document are revealing to say the least, Jeb Bush, Tallahassee’s Governor, and brother of President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, the Vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, Peter Rodman, Assistant Secretary of Defense, and Vin Weber, the Vice Chairman of Empower America, former Minnesota Republican Congressman, and banker, has been a registered lobbyist for the Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Mobil Corp, Microsoft, and the Edison Electric Institute, according to the Center for Public Integrity.  These people make up the faction of cronies, that Bush has placed in key positions of government to permeate this movement.  In the book Imperial Design: Neoconservative and the New Pax Americana, by Gary Dorrien, he attests that Bush and his “neo-cons” are fulfilling this movement,  “Having launched a total war on the world’s rogue states and terrorist allies, the Bush administration produced a remarkable crop of doctrines to support America’s total war.  First came the doctrine of preemptive attack against any enemy stat that possessed weapons of mass destruction.  Then came the doctrine of regime change against any such state,” and “In England the Blair administration was staggered by public outrage over the intelligence scandal and the Anglo/American failure to find weapons of mass destruction. The United States is not merely dominant; it assumes imperial responsibilities and reaps the benefits that derive from them.  It is the Imperial in the sense that it enforces its own idea of world order in America’s interest; it presumes the right to lay down the rules of trade, commerce, security, and political legitimacy.”  Furthermore, Dorrien asserts, “It assumes the burdens of global maintenance, and it rewards or punishes countries on the basis of their willingness to create open markets, support American military policies, and establish democratic governments.” He too notices the rich and powerful names; “Of the eighteen figures who signed the PNAC’s 1998 letter to Clinton calling for regime change in Iraq, eleven took positions in the Bush administration; the signatories of that 1998 letter are today a Who’s Who of senior ranking officials in this administration: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky, Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman, and National Security Council senior officials Elliot Abrams and Zalmay Khalilzad.”  Also from his book, pertaining to the United States’ pretext of democracy insidiously lurks, the reality of America’s Imperialism.   “A dominant great power acts essentially alone, but, embarrassed at the idea and still worshipping at the shrine of collective security [the United States] recruits a ship here, a brigade there, and blessings all around to give its unilateral actions a multilateral sheen,” says Charles Krauthammer, former speech writer for President Walter Mondale, psychiatrist, a McGill University, Oxford, and Harvard Yale Historian.  He concludes, “Yet it does face a serious threat to its dominance, indeed to its essential security; the boldness of these policies—or, as much of the world contends, their arrogance—is breathtaking.”  This boldness, which the United States is willing to adhere to, is eloquently illuminated in another part of Gary Dorrien’s book Imperial Design; he mentions a Yale Historian named Paul Kennedy.  In Kennedy’s book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, he “argued America’s vitality was threatened by the same pattern of imperial over commitments that dragged down Imperial Spain in the early seventeenth century and the British Empire in the early twentieth century; the military empire of the United States was created to protect its increasingly far-flung economic interests and take economic and strategic advantage of America’s powers.”  Hence, the United States invading and occupying many Middle Eastern countries.  Nonetheless, an Empire has to have a huge surplus of armed forces, “The United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces; this resembles the two-war standard that has been the basis of U.S. force planning over the past decade.  Yet, this standard needs to be updated to account for new realities and potential new conflicts,” the PNAC doctrine contends.  And subsequently, conscription was recently and covertly brought to the House Floor, and voted on, with most of the legislators voting it down.  This vote was reported in a Washington Post article, “GOP Brings Up Draft to Knock It Down,” on October 6, 2004, by staff writers Charles Babington and Don Oldenburg; nevertheless, President Bush can attain executive powers by having many cronies he planted in key judicial positions, in the Supreme Court enable him to subvert and distort many laws for this Christian, Republican, partisan, neo-conservative agendum. Discerned perfectly by James Bovard, the author of The Bush Betrayal; he professes “It is naive to presume that Bush’s dictatorial power is no threat to average Americans because he will only use it against bad guys.  A dictatorship rarely begins with public announcements of planned future abuses.  Instead, it is a gradual process, whittling away rights and establishing one sweeping prerogative after another.” Bovard includes some comments, verbatim, from a Bush interview conducted on December 16th, 2003, by ABC’s Diane Sawyer.  Ms. Sawyer asked Bush whether he had gone to war on false evidence.  Bush replied by insisting that Saddam had sought to acquire weapons.  In her reply “Sawyer asked incredulously:  But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still—” and Bush retorted: “So what’s the difference?”  In Bush’s continued spontaneous rant, he voiced a very insightful albeit frightening remark. Bovard writes, “Bush confirmed his own morbid narcissism in 2002” by spouting that  “I’m the commander—see, I don’t need to explain….That’s the interesting thing about being president….I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”  That statement by Bush is so convoluted and perturbing that anyone could examine or psychoanalyze the egomaniacal undertones of it. To illuminate the indifferent, nefarious, and egoistic ways that Bush and his cronies promote their lies, an “expert” on his deceit and deception exclaims, “The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, because the vast masses of a nation are, in the depths of their hearts, more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad.”  Additionally, “The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them more easy victims of a big lie than a small one, because they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones; such a form of lying would never enter their heads. They would never credit others with the possibility of such great impudence as the complete reversal of facts; even explanations would long leave them in doubt and hesitation, and any trifling reason would dispose them to accept a thing as true. Something therefore always remains and sticks from the most imprudent of lies, a fact which all bodies and individuals concerned in the art of lying in this world know only too well, and therefore they stop at nothing to achieve this end,” wrote Adolph Hitler in the first volume of Mein Kampf, originally published in 1925.

The civil liberties of Americans in 2005 and the future generations are in peril.  In an article from the Washington Post, “GOP Senators Back Pryor, Reject a democratic Deal” on Friday, May 13, 2005, by staff writers, Michael A. Fletcher and Charles Babington, the “Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee approved another of President Bush’s nominees to a federal appeals court, despite the threats from Democrats to block the nomination with a filibuster on the Senate floor. Democrats used the filibuster which requires 60 votes to be stopped in the 100-member Senate—to block Pryor’s nomination during Bush’s second term.”  However, the Bush administration and the huge Republican contingency want to repeal the filibuster used by Democrats, so that the Christian based Republicans, can impose more of their dogma’s against the civil liberties of the American people.  “We stand here on the precipice of a constitutional crisis,” stated Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). In a follow up article by the Washington Post article, “Democrats, GOP End Talks on Filibusters,” on Tuesday, May 17, 2005, by staff writers, Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz, the erosion of the filibuster looms near. The Pew Research Center released a poll showing that “35 percent of Americans still did not have an opinion” about Bush and his Republican bedfellows plans to expunge the only true “checks and balances” in a bi-partisan government, the filibuster, because Americans are doing “normal science.” Strikingly, but more interestingly, one influential group largely that has removed itself from the clash is corporate America; “We have been decidedly staying out of it and hoping that leveler heads will prevail,” said a National Association of Manufacturer’s spokesman. Corporate America is reluctant to “turn against the Republicans,” because they are cautious of a “strife-torn Senate killing pro-business items,” e.g., asbestos settlements. President Bush is gerrymandered political parties for his Christian based, neo-conservative, totalitarian agendum.  Including, the propensity to infringe upon the civil liberties of Americans, vicariously via the fear of terrorism, and mendacity, to create an oppressed country, as a consequence, fulfilling the goal of the PNAC set of guidelines for an Empire.  These anomalies were not perceived by the populace and due to Americans not “thinking outside the box,” and continuing to “do normal science,” society forfeits its rights unwittingly and uncontested.  Thomas Kuhn explains paradigms in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, chapter III, “The Nature of Normal Science” and chapter X, “Revolutions as Changes of World View”: how people possess a narrow-minded view of something, and how hard it is to change that viewpoint. “A paradigm is an accepted model or pattern, and that aspect of its meaning has enabled me,” Kuhn states, “The success of a paradigm is at the start largely a promise of success discoverable in selected and still incomplete examples.”  Therefore, the populace does “normal science,” and too frequently, “never think outside the box.” Kuhn expounds on this, “A part of normal theoretical work, through only a small part, consists simply in the use of existing theory to predict factual information of intrinsic value.”  So, Americans continue doing “in the box thinking,” and never have an epiphany, i.e., a scientific revolution. “Normal science ultimately leads only to the recognition of anomalies and to crises. After a scientific revolution many old measurements and manipulations become irrelevant and are replaced by others instead.  In addition, we shall see that occasionally the old manipulation in its new role will yield different concrete results,” writes Kuhn.  Therefore, all the actions by this administration are the anomalies that represent unheeded forewarnings.  And now the United States is in a full-scale invasion and occupation in Iraq; a war that was initiated for feckless reasons, as reported in a Washington Post article, “Data on Iraqi Arms Flawed, Panel Says,” by Washington Post staff writers Walter Pincus & Peter Baker, on Friday, April 1, 2005.  It was reported that a Presidential commission reports states that the government’s collection of information leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq cited its data “either worthless or misleading” and its analysis “riddled with errors.” Thus, resulting in one of the “most damaging intelligence failures in recent American history.”  In the 692 page report, it has been determined that Bush and his administration still have not fixed the problems, and the panel recommended 74 recommendations intended to “transform” the intelligence bureaucracy that is “fragmented, loosely managed and poorly coordinated.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said, “The president’s decision to go to war in Iraq was also dead wrong; the investigation will not be complete unless we may have used or misused intelligence to pursue its own agenda.” This agendum is expressively depicted in “Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire,” a documentary directed by Jeremy Earp, and Sut Jhally. The documentary accurately exposes a neoconservative, unilateral, totalitarian movement, so that one race, one family or one empire can control the world via fear, and military supremacy.  In one decisive interview, Karen Kwiatkowski, Air Force Lt. Col., asserts her troubling experiences, while working in an office that was overseeing many documents stating supposed reasons for a justified war in Iraq. “Some of these documents imply possibilities that Saddam or Iraq might possess weapons of mass destruction, either biological or nuclear,” asserts Kwiatkowski, and that the “administration took bits and parts out of context” from the “all of the reports generated,” and then “carefully manipulated them, to justify an occupation or war.” However, those contentions are “feckless.” She also illuminates a conspicuous coincidence; if one looks at where all the major bases are in Iraq, then one will ascertain that all the bases are coincidentally beside the major oil line, and furthermore, that this main oil line is being heavily protected by American soldiers.

“Man selects only for his own good; Nature only for that of the being which she tends,” writes Charles Darwin, from On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection, in 1859; “Man can act only on external and visible characters; nature cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they may be useful to any being.  She can act on every internal organ, on every shade of constitutional difference, on the whole machinery of life.”  This neo-conservative movement also displays man mimicking nature via natural selection; “Every slight modification, which in the course of ages chanced to arise, and which in any way favored the individuals of any of the species, by better adapting them to their altered conditions; and natural selection would thus have free scope for the work of improvement.”  Meaning, in a Marxist viewpoint, Capitalism segregated the people into two divisions, where the minority, or the rich, own and rule the lower class, or the majority. Thus, creating an imbalance in society of oppression and Capitalism.  “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe,” says Marx, in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, “It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.”  Expounding further, “All old-established national industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe.”  The abovementioned by Marx and Engles, forebode the evil ways of Capitalism; the engrossing and excessive attributes that it manifests.  Also, “The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation; the bourgeoisie cannot exist without revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society; the bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country.” And oil is the most desired resource by this administration and Bush’s personal ambition of starting an oil company. “George W.  Bush returned to Midland, TX, in the late 1970s to follow his father's footsteps in the oil business. Beginning in 1978, he set up a series of limited partnerships - Arbusto '78, Arbusto '79, to drill for oil,” writes Rick Wiles, from American Freedom Arbusto means, “Bush” in Spanish. “Salem bin Laden, Osama's older brother, was an investor in Arbusto Energy, as was James Bath, a Houston aircraft broker. Bath served with President Bush in the Texas Air National Guard. Bath has a mysterious connection to the Central Intelligence Agency,” says Wiles, and “Doing business with the enemy is nothing new to the Bush family. Much of the Bush family wealth came from supplying needed raw materials and credit to Adolf Hitler's Third Reich.”  Moreover, Bush’s clandestine relationship makes a mockery of his egoistic harangues.  Wiles comments, “When President George W. Bush froze assets connected to Osama bin Laden, he didn't tell the American people that the terrorist mastermind's late brother was an investor in the president's former oil business in Texas. He also hasn't leveled with the American public about his financial connections to a host of shady Saudi characters involved in drug cartels, gun smuggling, and terrorist networks.”  Additionally, Wiles adds, “President Bush certainly is aware of that his former Saudi sugar daddy is still financing Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.  USA Today newspaper reported in 1999, a year after bin Laden's attacks on US embassies in Africa, Khaled bin Mahfouz and other wealthy Saudis were funneling tens of millions of dollars each year into bin Laden's bank accounts. Five top Saudi businessmen ordered the National Commercial Bank to transfer personal funds and $3 million pilfered from a Saudi pension fund to the Capitol Trust Bank in New York City. The money was deposited into the Islamic Relief and Bless Relief—Islamic charities operating in the US and Great Britain as fronts for Osama bin Laden.”  He also remarks about a Halliburton derivative, “Abdullah Taha Bakhsh, the Arab who cosigned the $25 million cash infusion into George W. Bush's Harken Energy Corporation, appointed Talat Othman to manage his 17.6 percent share in Harken Energy Corp. Othman, a native Palestinian, is the president and CEO of Dearborn Financial Inc., an investment firm in Arlington Heights, IL.”  As noted in “House of Bush/House of Saud” by Craig Unger, “Saudi Arabia owns 8% of the Gross Domestic Product in America, because the Saudis have loaned and spent $100’s of millions in the United States and invested/subsidized huge conglomerates in America.  

Contemporary Americans unfortunately display Kuhnian tenets of  “normal science” and perpetual “paradigms,” even when anomalies expose themselves.  Moreover, Simmelian aspects of “The Metropolis” and “Mental Life” easily are most of many American’s demeanor.  One either personifies a blasΓ© attitude or practices Intellectualism.  And obviously Darwinism applies to culture, the propagation and progeny of the human race in the world.  Additionally, via evolution, paradigms, and capitalism, the human race as individual cultures, created dogmas of good and evil, and therefore, Empires or Imperialism could subjugate the very people it pretends to serve, via tyranny in the semblance of good or nobility.  When in truth it is a partisan, religious, and heavily egoistic, serving one purpose, an Empire’s.  For example, presently, the fourth anniversary of the World Trade Center tragedy is upon America, and there are no better answers to what happened.  The war is raging on, and thousands of American soldiers—children—are killed.  Companies such as Halliburton are being awarded numerous no-bid contracts by this administration, as reported in various newspapers, e.g., the Washington Post, and the NY Times, including, Gary Dorrien, author of Imperial Design: Neoconservative and the New Pax Americana.  He writes, “The Bush administration’s favor to Oil-services Company Halliburton alone were enormous, beginning with a no-bid federal contract for Iraqi reconstruction projects that was signed six months before the invasion.  By the time that American troops entered Baghdad, Cheney’s former company held $425 million in work orders for troops support projects in Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq; $28 million for POW camps in Iraq; $40 million to fight oil-well fires in Iraq; and $70 million for Iraq reconstruction projects.  And by the end of the year, contracts for upcoming oil infrastructure repairs exceeded $6 billion, and Wolfowitz publicly told France and Germany not to bother applying.”  Dick Cheney, the Vice-president, is still receiving deferred payments for his help with Halliburton’s allotted contracts, a contention he denies via the media. In addition to the daily report from the New York Stock Exchange, that the price of oil is increasing, weakening the economy, and despite this, Bush and his administration contend that democracy is being implemented in Iraq, but the truth is the antithesis of that claim.  Newspapers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times post almost daily columns that Iraq is in shambles, and the Iraqis want the Americans to leave and end their occupation.   Notwithstanding, George W. Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush, still keeps his extended family-to-family relationship with Osama Bin Laden’s family, by visiting them in Saudi Arabia.  Not to mention, President George W. Bush is the best of friends with the Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and Prince Bandar Bin Sultan Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia. Surprisingly, Prince Bandar Bin Sultan Abdul Aziz was the one on the phone with President Bush and Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, during the first 48 hours following the attack, and all of them coordinated the exodus of the 141 Saudis, which included several dozen family members of Bin Laden; just one of the abundant anomalies in the book House of Bush / House of Saud by Craig Unger. Represented by Thomas Kuhn’s assertions about “The Nature of Normal Science” and “Revolutions as Changes of World View” from his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. “A paradigm is an accepted model or pattern, and in a standard application, the paradigm functions by permitting the replication of examples any one of which could in principle serve to replace it,” Kuhn writes.  In Kuhnian terms, this paradigm has produced an anomaly, hence, the questionable “exodus” of so many blood relatives of Bin Laden, therefore, the American populace’s failure to notice and draw attention to the disputed, is Americans performing “normal science,” and not “thinking outside the box,” and “even more important, during revolutions scientists see new and different things when looking with familiar instruments in places they have looked before; therefore, at times of revolution, when the normal-scientific tradition changes, the scientists perception of his environment must be re-educated-in some familiar situations he must learn to see a new gestalt,” writes Kuhn.  The failure of a scientific revolution is ostensible, “What occurs during a scientific revolution is not fully reducible to a reinterpretation of individual and stable data; given a paradigm, interpretation of data is central to the enterprise that explores it; but that interpretative enterprise, can only articulate a paradigm, not correct it.”  And that theory/supposition is vividly clear.   A scientific revolution needs to be come to the forefront of the American people, politically. “Normal science ultimately leads only to the recognition of anomalies and to crises; after a scientific revolution many old measurements and manipulations become irrelevant and are replaced by others instead.  In addition, we shall see that occasionally the old manipulation in its new role will yield different concrete results.”  When the paradigm shifts, the truth is unmolested and the populace can determine its own perspective, as an individual, and as a Nation. “If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things. It is only prudent never to place complete confidence in that by which we have even once been deceived,” said Rene Descartes.

Works Cited

Bovard, James. The author of The Bush Betrayal (2004).

Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859).

Dorrien, Gary. Imperial Design: Neoconservative and the New Pax Americana (2004).

Hitler, Adolph. Mein Kampf, Volume I. (1925).

Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1989).

Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, chapter III, “The Nature of Normal Science” and chapter X, “Revolutions as Changes of World View” (1962).

Marx, Karl. The Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848).

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Genealogy of Morals, Good and Evil,” Good and Bad (1887).

Simmel, George. The Metropolis and Mental Life (1950).

Unger, Craig. House of Bush/House of Saud (2004).

Bush interview conducted on December 16th, 2003, by ABC’s Diane Sawyer

Washington Post 9 April, 2005.

VandeHei, Jim. “Bush: Funeral a ‘Reaffirmation”

Washington Post 6 October, 2004.

Babington, Charles and Oldenburg, Don. “GOP Brings Up Draft to Knock It Down” 

Washington Post 13 May, 2005.

Babington, Charles and Fletcher, A. Michael. “GOP Senators Back Pryor, Reject a democratic Deal”

Washington Post 17 May, 2005.

Murray, Shailagh and Balz, Dan. “Democrats, GOP End Talks on Filibusters” 

Washington Post 1 April, 2005.

Pincus, Walter and Baker, Peter. “Data on Iraqi Arms Flawed, Panel Says” 

Earp, Jeremy and Jhally, Sut. (2004). Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire. Media Education Foundation

Microsoft Encarta. 1 May, 2005 <>

Wikipedia. 1 May, 2005 <>