Democracy can exist only with the informed consent of the people to be governed. Democracy does not survive where votes are either obtained by fraud or embezzled after the ballots are counted. If the decisions that impact the “represented” are made behind closed doors, as a result of so-called “lobbying” that is inserted between the voter and the decision-maker, the vote is effectively cancelled – democracy dies.
The vestiges of democracy that we have in the West today are threatened by an information war, waged upon us by our governments and the media that serve them. Steve Biko pointed out that the most powerful weapon in the hands of an oppressor is the mind of the oppressed. The info war that we presently face is carried out by disinformation, misinformation and propaganda-by-omission. An increasingly militarised, Zionist-managed, corporate media has become the number one weapon of mass deception. For those who do not know, Zionism is an ideology that asserts that historic Palestine belongs to the Jews, all Jews, and that only Jews are entitled to full rights in the state of Israel. The Zionist movement proclaimed the state of Israel in 1948 and now occupies the territory of historic Palestine.
We are neither informed in school nor by mainstream media that Zionism, which claims to be concerned for the Jews, is actually incompatible with Judaism, as well as with any other religion or body of ethical values. It follows that we are not informed that Zionism uses world Jewry as a human shield against criticism of Zionist aspirations, or that the religious concept of the chosen people is different from the “chosenness” on which Zionism bases its claims to political, cultural and financial empire. While religion-based chosenness involves morals, universal values and responsibilities to God and fellow human beings, Zionism’s claim to chosenness is founded on a self-invented biological/genetical blood-line that allegedly leads all Jews to historic Palestine. Moreover, Zionism rests on the assumption that DNA is a relevant factor in determining whether a person should have civil and political rights or the right to live in Palestine/Israel. It is not surprising, therefore, that the race-based ideology of Zionism is incompatible with the morality-based religion of Judaism.
Israel’s expansionist aspirations were clear from the beginning (as was the fact that Israel wanted the United States pulled into its wars). Perhaps Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, said it best, when he admitted that “the boundaries of Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them”.
Zionist expansionist policy has been consistent throughout Israel’s history. Important means of reaching Zionist/Israeli goals are perception management and action management (such as self-censorship).
Israel’s current prime minister, Naftali Bennet, shown on Arutz Sheva TV, said: “[inaudible], in conjunction with My Israel, has arranged instruction day for Wiki editors. The goal of the day is to teach people how to edit in Wikipedia, which is the number one source of information today in the world. As way of example, if someone searches the Gaza Flotilla, we wanna be there. We wanna be the guys who influence what is written there, how it’s written, and to ensure that it’s balanced and Zionist in nature.” Naftali Bennet has formerly held the posts of Israeli Minister of Education and Israeli Minister of Defence, among other offices.
In general, excellent accounts of how Zionism has corrupted the USA can be found in Alison Weir’s Book, Against Our Better Judgment: The hidden history of how the US was used to create Israel (Independent Publishing Platform, 2014) and Jeff Gates’s book, Guilt by Association, How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War (State Street Publications, 2008). Zionism is older and more organised than Nazism was. The lack of relevant information has allowed it to become even more deadly, and more culture-suffocating than Nazism. There are two plans for Zionism’s extinction of democracy that merit specific attention due to the profound impact they have had, in the “Middle East” as well as world-wide. They are: “A STRATEGY FOR ISRAEL IN THE NINETEEN EIGHTIES” – generally referred to as the “ODED YINON PLAN” or the “YINON PLAN” – and the plan for REBUILDING AMERICA’S Defences (by the Project For The New American Century – PNAC). While the Yinon Plan focuses on domination of the Middle East, PNAC’s plan for Rebuilding Americas Defencesis a Globalist venture of US/Israeli domination. How are such plans covered in school? They are not. Even many people who have studied politics and history at institutes of higher learning have never heard of them. Let us have a look at them.
A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s – the “Oded Yinon Plan”
Oded Yinon was an Israeli journalist, who had been attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry. He wrote a plan for Israel’s pursuit of war and ethnic cleansing in the Middle East, chilling in its explicitness and the detail of how to destroy the Arab countries and their populations, to assist Israel’s progress. Oded Yinon’s article, presenting his plan, appeared in Kivunim (Directions), the journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organisation. Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” was translated and edited by Israel Shahak, a strong Israeli historian and human rights advocate. I have noticed that translations of the plan tend to be deleted from the internet. “The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. “Small” here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation”. Israel has consistently acted in accord with these goals.
It is not surprising that Wikipedia downplays the role and essence of the Oded Yinon Plan. Wikipedia starts it presentation as follows:
The Yinon Plan refers to an article published in February 1982 in the Hebrew journal Kivunim (“Directions”) entitled “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s”. The article was penned by Oded Yinon, reputedly a former advisor to Ariel Sharon, a former senior official with the Israeli Foreign Ministry and journalist for The Jerusalem Post.
It is cited as an early example of characterising political projects in the Middle East in terms of a logic of sectarian divisions. It has played a role in both conflict resolution analysis by scholars who regard it as having influenced the formulation of policies adopted by the American administration under George W. Bush, and also in conspiracy theories according to which the article either predicted or planned major political events [i.e. war and terror] in the Middle East since the 1980s, including the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the overthrowing of Saddam Hussein, the Syrian Civil War and the rise of the Islamic State. The claim has been made that Yinon’s article was adopted by members of the Institute for Zionist Strategies in the American administration until it was supposedly taken up as a way to further American interests in the Middle East, as well as achieving the Jewish dream of a Jewish state “from the brook of Egypt [i.e. the Nile] to the Euphrates”, encompassing the majority of the Middle East, as written in the Hebrew Bible.
Wikipedia goes on to present Yinon’s plan in terms of a new epoch in history, which required both the development of a fresh perspective and an operational strategy to implement it.
The rationalist and “humanist foundations of Western civilisation” were in a state of collapse, asserted Yinon, who basically posed the civilised West, which included Israel, against the Arabs and Muslims. Israel would be offered opportunities it had failed to exploit in 1967 [the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty and its connection with the 1967 war will be addressed in a separate study]. Specifically, Yinon asserted that the immediate aim of policy should be the dissolution of the military capabilities of Arab states east of Israel, while the primary long-term goal should be the formation of unique areas defined in terms of ethno-national and religious identities. One of Israel’s aims for the 1980s would be the dismemberment of Egypt, a country Yinon described as a “corpse”. Ariel Sharon reportedly stated that his long-term strategy consisted of “squeezing the Palestinians out of the West Bank, allowing only enough of them to remain for work”. Yinon suggested that Israeli policy should aim for “the liquidation of Jordan” as ruled by the Hashemites, together with increased Palestinian migration from the West Bank. Yinon thought that the dissolution of Jordan would bring an end to the problem of the existence of dense concentrations of Palestinians in the Palestinian territories Israel had conquered in the Six-Day War in 1967.
Wikipedia says, in euphemistic terms, that parts of Yinon’s theory was boosted after civil war “broke out” in Lebanon in 1975 and came to be associated with Henry Kissinger, whose Middle East “diplomacy” was thought to be greatly detrimental to Lebanese interests, and who was rumoured to be planning the partition of Lebanon into two states. Yinon considered Iraq, with its oil wealth, to be Israel’s greatest threat, and that Israel should aim for dissolution of Iraq. Wikipedia covers the fact that the Yinon plan caused a sensational stir and great controversy at the time, but ends the presentation of the controversy by saying that the “French philosopher, convert to Islam and holocaust denier, Roger Garaudy, who was married to a Palestinian woman, used the text the following year in the English version of his book, L’Affaire Israël: le sionisme politique, to support his argument that a mechanism was in place to drive Arabs out of what was defined as Eretz Israel and disintegrate Arab countries. Jordan’s Prince Hassan bin Talal outlined its contents in a book on peace prospects, in 1984, as did Christine Moss Helms in a Brookings Institution study”.
So, while Wikipedia initially conveys the plan as a policy rather than as the opening or continuation of a World war (in my view, the one we are witnessing now), the blueprint for aggressive wars of expansionist agendas emerges as one reads. Wikipedia does note that Israel Shahak’s translation of the Yinon plan to English, which appeared in the Journal of Palestine Studies, in the foreword interpreted the Yinon plan as both a fantasy and a faithful reflection ofthe strategy being developed by Ariel Sharon and Rafael Eitan, and that Shahak drew parallels with the geopolitical ideas that flourished in Germany during 1890-1933, which were later adopted by Hitler and applied to Eastern Europe.
Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, the same year as Oded Yinon’s plan was published. Israel has referred to its invasion of Lebanon as “Peace for Galilee”.
A 2006 article in CounterPunch, by Linda Heard, reviewed policies under George W. Bush, such as the “war on terror” and events in the Middle East. The article concluded the following about the Yinon plan:
There is one thing that we do know. Oded Yinon’s 1982 “Zionist Plan for the Middle East” is in large part taking shape. Is this pure coincidence? Was Yinon a gifted psychic? Perhaps! Alternatively, we in the West are victims of a long-held agenda not of our making and without doubt not in our interests.
In 2017 Professors Becker and Polkinghorn argued that Yinon’s plan was adopted and refined in a 1996 policy document entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”, written by a research group at the Israeli-affiliated Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in Washington, DC. The group was directed by Richard Perle, who later became one of the key figures in the formulation of the war against Iraq, launched in 2003. Becker and Polkinhorn concluded that opponents of Israel (in Wikipedia’s words “admit that avowed enemies of Israel”) take the sequence of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, the Golan Heights, its encirclement of Gaza, the invasion of Lebanon, its bombing of Iraq, airstrikes in Syria and its attempts at containing Iran’s nuclear capacities – when read in the light of the Yinon Plan and the Clean break analysis – to be proof that Israel is engaged in a modern version of The Great Game, with the backing of Zionist currents in the American neoconservative and Christian fundamentalist movements. They also conclude that the Likud Party appears to have implemented both plans.
The Project for the New American Century
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was or is a think-tank aiming at increasing US dominance in the world. While it is unclear whether the think-tank still exists, it is clear that its policy remains. PNAC, as its name indicates, allegedly served or serves US interests but, considering how the US was and is used and ruled, the project ultimately benefits Israel, to the detriment of anyone opposing Zionist rule. The members of PNAC and the authors of its publications should not be accused of dual loyalties, however. It is clear that they ultimately serve Israel.
It should come as no surprise that Wikipedia has been used as a laundry service for whitewashing what amounts to PNAC’s blueprint for committing crimes against humanity. Wikipedia’s entry, at the time of this writing, starts as follows:
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative think tank based in Washington, DC that focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organisation in 1997… founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. PNAC’s stated goal was “to promote American global leadership”. The organisation stated that “American leadership is good both for America and for the world” and sought to build support for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.
In spite of attempts at cloaking war crimes in euphemistic language, even Wikipedia contains much relevant information on PNAC as one reads on. For example:
Of the twenty-five people who signed PNAC’s founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the administration of US President George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and Dave Grondin have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush administration, particularly in building support for the war against Iraq.
Kristol and Kagan had advocated regime change in Iraq already in 1998, in an article published in the New York Times, in which they argued that bombing Iraq wasn’t enough. The US government thereafter alleged that Iraq was unwilling to cooperate with UN weapons inspections.
Core members of PNAC, including Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, and John Bolton, were among the signatories of an open letter initiated by the PNAC to President Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein. Aside from contributing to PNAC, some of its members have represented, among other institutions: Nitze School of Advanced International, Studies, Johns Hopkins University; National Defense University; Office of Secretary of Defense; Centre for Strategic and International Studies; Yale University; Harvard University; US Military Academy at West Point; US Naval War College; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee; GAMA Corporation; The RAND Corporation; Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment; Northrop Grumman Corporation and US Department of State (see this, for instance).
Many so called neoconservatives, within as well as outside of the US government, pushed consistently for the invasion of Iraq, although it was well known that Iraq posed no threat to the US. PNAC was one of the forces that pushed hard for President Bush’s “war on terror” and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the removal of Saddam Hussein, in spite of the absence of evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraq to the 9/11 attacks.
PNAC had released “Rebuilding America’s Defences, Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, A Report of The Project for the New American Century” already in 2000. It is one of its most infamous – and truly chilling – documents. Among its goals, “Rebuilding America’s Defences” planned the development of global missile defences and control of space and cyberspace. “An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the ‘infosphere’ will find it difficult to exert global political leadership” (p.51).
One of the most terrifying statements of PNAC has been its thinly veiled wish for an excuse to go to endless war, expressed as a concern that “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbour” (p.51). This has been widely quoted, and is even quoted in Wikipedia, which also includes information on military spending tied to PNAC’s objectives. The 9/11 attacks became the alleged excuse for the already planned wars on Arab and predominantly Muslim countries. “Rebuilding America’s defences“brazenly discusses, however, that “[f]rom constabulary duties to the conduct ofmajor theatre wars, the ability to defend currentUS security interests will be placed atgrowing risk” (p.72).The report is chilling in its discussion of types of strategies and weapons. For example, on page 60 it states:
And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.
This is merely a glimpse of the possibilities inherent in the process of transformation, not a precise prediction. Whatever the shape and direction of this revolution in military affairs, the implications for continued American military pre-eminence will be profound. As argued above, there are many reasons to believe that US forces already possess nascent revolutionary capabilities, particularly in the realms of intelligence, command and control, and long-range precision strikes. Indeed, these capabilities are sufficient to allow the armed services to begin an “interim”, short-to-medium-term process of transformation right away, creating new force designs and operational concepts – designs and concepts different than those contemplated by the current defence programme – to maximise the capabilities that already exist. But these must be viewed as merely a way-station toward a more thoroughgoing transformation.
The matter of biological warfare is certainly very relevant. The issue of biological warfare and its potential or actual use for genocide will, however, be left to separate studies. The use of long-range precision strikes is a topical matter as well, not least since the US has “pulled out” its soldiers from Afghanistan and is sending drones instead.
According to Wikipedia, The Project for the New American Century ceased to function in 2006 and was replaced by a new think-tank named the Foreign Policy Initiative, co-founded by Kristol and Kagan in 2009. Wikipedia, further, states that The Foreign Policy Initiative was dissolved in 2017, but that, from 5 September 2018 until 13 January 2019 the PNAC homepage went back online without any further explanation. What is clear, however, is that the policies embodied in PNAC’s plans have not been abandoned.
“Western civilisation” and how we are conditioned to accept unceasing wars
The indoctrination of our minds starts early. In regard to human ethics, civil and political rights, “Western civilisation”, which allegedly includes Israel, brainwashes us to believe in a hierarchy of cultural importance formed by Zionist controlled narratives. While Stalin’s, Pol Pot’s and several other genocides, including those of Rwanda and Darfur, are addressed in school, overviews are often cursory and rarely presented in a context that entertains the idea that the death and suffering of “those” people are on a par with the suffering of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust. The curriculums serve Zionism and, as noted above, Zionism uses world Jewry as a human shield.
While the Nazi genocide is, therefore, extensively covered in school and mainstream media, the narratives frequently leave out accounts of what happened to non-Jewish victims. Education usually lacks relevant coverage of Hitler’s holocaust of Roma; intelligentsia; trade unionists; political dissidents; black people; Poles and other Slavic groups; mentally challenged people; Muslims; Jehovah’s Witnesses; homosexuals, and many more. At best, these groups are mentioned in passing. Jewish suffering, on the other hand, enjoys special elevation and constant repetition. Education about the German holocaust focuses so disproportionately on Jewish suffering that it is easy to get the impression that the millions of non-Jewish victims are not that important.
A glaring example of omission is that most history curriculums do not address the fact that the Nazis and their Allies exterminated anywhere between 250,000 and 1.5 million Roma during World War II. This might have represented about 50 per cent of the Romani population in Europe at the time. Later research, cited by Ian Hancock, has estimated the death toll to be at about 1.5 million out of an estimated 2 million Roma. Sybil Milton, a historian at the US Holocaust Memorial Research Institute, has estimated the number of Roma lives lost as somewhere between a half-million and a million-and-a-half. The Nazis’ holocaust of the Roma is, when mentioned at all, generally referred to as the Porajmos (the “Devouring”).
As an example of what has been labelled “lobbying” of students as well as of government officials, click here to see where the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) tells you in its own words how it replaces people who disagree with Israel – in the United States government and on US campuses. A short Version (19 seconds) of AIPAC’s unflinching admission of how it takes over student governments can be viewed here. The narrator says:
How are we going to beat back an anti-Israel divestment resolution at Berkeley? We’re going to make sure that pro-Israel students take over the student government – reverse the vote. This is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capital, this is how AIPAC must operate on our nations campuses.
AIPAC Leadership Development Director Jonathan Kessler was the one who said this before student leaders who had been brought to the convention in Washington DC on a free, all expenses paid trip from 370 campuses from all 50 US states, according to If Americans Knew (see comments section under video clip).
David Edwards and David Cromwell have made a profound analysis of racism contextualised: They have, for instance, noted that it is remarkable how far into the past the detractors of Jeremy Corbyn (former UK Labour leader, replaced by ultra-Zionist Keir Starmer) will go in search of signs of racism (alleged anti-Semitism), “when a far more lethal form of prejudice is clearly informing current US-UK foreign policy devastating entire countries”. Edwards and Cromwell, further conclude that:
It is a prejudice that views the lives of brown-skinned people in Afghanistan Iraq, Iran, Libya, Palestine, Syria, Venezuela and elsewhere as far less important than the lives of white, European and US people.
In his book, A Different Kind of War – The UN Sanctions Regime in Iraq, Hans von Sponeck, the former UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, wrote that during… the oil-for-food programme… “the UN was more humane with its dogs than with the Iraqi people”… (Hans von Sponeck, A Different Kind of War, Bergahn Books, 2006, p.38)
As a result, 500,000 Iraqi children lost their lives. The price was deemed to be “worth it” by Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton’s secretary of state. But what is really telling is just how little impact this mass death had on Western politics and journalism. The same is true of the one million Iraqis who died as a result of the 2003 invasion. It is true of the Afghan civilians forced to eat grass to survive in the wake of 9/11, when US threats to bomb Afghanistan, and then the invasion itself, shut down aid convoys. It is true of the horrendous impact of sanctions on Iran, renewed and worsened under Trump. It is true of the ongoing destruction of Palestinian society along with regular massacres, the destruction of Libyan society, the destruction of Syrian society, and so on.
The fact that none of this matters, that it puts not the slightest dent in the political-media enthusiasm for war, that it is not even considered relevant in a national discussion on racism, is itself the result of a deeply toxic racism. It is a form of cultural arrogance and contempt for human lives quite obviously deemed far less important, far less valuable.
We complain about the refugees who are “spilling in” over our borders. But, as Ole Dammegaard said: “If it’s a problem with these refugees, stop bombing their countries. Maybe they would stay at home” (1′ 30″).
“Presstitution” and the role of militarised media as a weapon of mass deception
As noted above, most journalists serve corporate military and Zionist interests well. To a disturbing extent, mainstream media, along with the police and other supposedly civilian institutions, have become militarised. Even on the internet, algorithms are re-set to catch what suits Zionists/Israel, while a lot of what sheds light on their terror is simply removed/de-platformed. “There is a symbiotic relationship between media outlets who need sources, the weapons industry that needs favourable news coverage, and the former military officials who need jobs, and it all works out together” (Russell Brand, quoting Jim Naurekas, The Intercept, at 8’55”). In the context of military experts on the defence industry “dole”, and the use of them in mainstream media, Brand quoted Naureckas sayng: “[Such] conflicts of interest put a premium on potential atrocities over existing ones” (8’40”). “The imaginary future bloodshed of the Taliban has so much more emotional weight in the coverage than the actual people who have been killed by the US in the last 20 years” (8’46”).
Means such as blackmail, threats and slander – formally illegal in every system of nominal democracy – are used to deter journalists from analysing how endless wars are instigated and maintained. Investigative journalists have, therefore, become an endangered species (nearly extinct), as their readers become imperilled, too. While blackmail/extortion/racketeering, treason, espionage, assault, bribery, murder, money laundering, embezzlement, arson, sabotage, robbery, dealing in obscene matter, slander, libel, persecution, harassment, intimidation, threats to life and livelihood, etc. constitute prohibited acts in most or all legal systems, Zionist terror networks need not fear the application of these prohibitions to them. On the contrary, many of these acts tend to be labelled “lobbying” if done by a Zionist. Obviously, if a Muslim engages in the same practices, they are labelled “terrorism”. Stated differently, the terms “lobbyism” and “terrorism” are interchangeable to a large extent, distinguished only by the identity of the actor, not by any element of the act.
Asa Winstanley, an investigative journalist with the Electronic Intifada, reported evidence that Israel was running a campaign to undermine former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. In 2017 AlJazeerabroadcast a four-part investigation titled The Lobby which looked into the Israel “lobby’s” activities in the UK.
It revealed that Israeli embassy spy Shai Masot was working with front organisations in Labour to smear critics of Israel as “anti-Semitic”. Masot worked closely with two important pro-Israel groups in Labour (Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel). The latter includes 80 Labour MPs. Masot has since returned to Israel.
In The Lobby USA (a follow-up to The Lobby) AlJazeera also investigated the activities of the Israeli “lobby” in the US, where it has been instrumental in smearing and silencing pro-Palestinian voices. However, the film was suppressed, although an excerpt was leaked.
“The first leaked excerpt of AlJazeera’s censored film on the Israel Lobby in the US claims to identify the funder behind the Canary Mission, an anonymous website devoted to smearing and silencing vocal supporters of Palestinian rights.” Aaron Maté at The Real News, further revealed that the suppression of the film was the result of strong Israeli pressure on Qatar, the owner of AlJazeera, which never showed the film – citing national security reasons! The Electronic Intifada obtained leaked excerpts of it, however. Asa Winstanley, noted:
The film has been censored even though it addresses matters of considerable public interest, including covert efforts on behalf of a foreign state to spy on, harass or prevent Americans from engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment [of the US Constitution, namely: freedom of speech, press and religion; freedom of peaceable assembly and the right to petition government for redress of grievances].
The right to peaceable assembly is sometimes referred to as freedom of association, which is the right of individuals to gather and collectively express, promote, pursue and defend their collective or shared ideas. In March 2019, If Americans Knew was able to post The Lobby USA (All Episodes). These can be viewed here.
We must stop calling these activities “lobbying”.
I hesitate to call the current state of affairs World War III, because, to my way of thinking World War II didn’t end. There were re-groupings and new methods of pursuing “Western” supremacy, now with Zionism leading the charge. But I have yet to see a decrease in crimes against humanity, including genocide, since World War II supposedly ended. The contrary is the case.
Some havelikened theOded Yinon Plan and the plan for “Rebuilding America’s defences”to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and have pointed out that Mein Kampf was largely ignored until after the war. We must stop calling war crimes, the instigation of genocide and crimes against humanity “lobbying”.
The only way to make democracy possible is through an informed public. Already in 1961, President Eisenhower saw the dangers of the disastrous rise of misplaced power in a military-industrial complex. In his Farewell Address, he said that “[o]nly an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defence with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” Eisenhower’s speech can be heard here.
TOGETHER, we can make democracy happen!
Fernando Guevara can be reached at Fernandoguevara2019@yahoo.com.