This the first of several posts explaining what the doctrine of “regime change” is, where it came from, and why it matters.
The regime which has changed most is our own. How so?
Forty years of regime change has produced a political programme of national suicide in the West.
Regime change has normalised permanent war, censorship, political corruption, sexual extremism, the rule of lawyers versus the rule of law, deindustrialisation and Net Zero lunacy, mass migration and open borders along with rights-based NGO actions to promote depopulation and dissolve social cohesion.
In short, all of our institutions have been hijacked by a fanatical death cult.
This is the story of how your world went mad, and how the state became the enemy of the people - everywhere.
Regime change and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race: the economic, social and international costs of a forty year project for world domination.
RAPID DOMINANCE
For over forty years, the West has developed a policy of regime change abroad. Now known as Liberal Intervention, this doctrine proceeds from the idea that Western Liberal democracy is the verdict of history in human affairs.
Its absence justifies war.
The phrase, made famous in the Iraq war of 2003, accompanied the doctrine of achieving "rapid dominance" known as "shock and awe", an idea drawn from a 1996 publication of the same name.
Why did "achieving rapid dominance" become so important? The fall of the Soviet Union occasioned what Charles Krauthammer called "The Unipolar Moment" in an article of January 1st, 1990.
This "moment", said Krauthammer, "won't last long". His essay calls for the United States to recognise that for a brief interval it will enjoy unchallenged global supremacy. How should it use this fleeting opportunity?
“ONLY GLOBAL POWER”
Following a RAND Corp report suggesting four possible courses of action, the United States selected the most perilous experiment - global domination.
RAND has since the 1960s advised the Pentagon and the US Government on strategic issues.
In November of 1990, RAND published its note, "US Grand Strategy for the 1990s and Beyond".
Recognizing a possibility for peace, it began with an optimistic summary which would never be realized.
The report said:
"The changes of 1989 imply a transformed US global role, from leading a worldwide alliance against other power centers to helping other countries make the world a safer and a more prosperous place."
With talk of a tremendous "peace dividend" in the air, where vast military budgets could instead be spent on improving life at home, the paper presented four options:
These possible futures reduced to a choice between:
1. The Only Global Power
2. Collective Security
3. Arsenal of Democracy
4. Disengagement
Why did the US choose the one course of action which would replace the Cold War with an endless series of hot ones?
This was not change, but a continuity of policies designed to undermine a Communist enemy which had ceased to exist.
PROJECT NEOCON
In choosing the Global Power route, the neoconservatives turned one massive, and fortunate victory into a succession of defeats. This is an ideology which aimed at the capture of American power and the transformation of the very idea of America.
You can read about the neocon Project for A New American Century, co-founded by bloated obscenity Robert Kagan, here:
The neoconservatives' long history moves through Trotskyism and social democracy to a fanatical anti-communism. Their opportunity is understood to have arrived with the events of September 11, 2001 - but their influence had been growing for decades.
Under President Reagan, a new initiative was founded to undermine communist and fellow travelling regimes. Called the National Endowment for Democracy, its sole purpose was to foment what would later be known as "regime change".
This project, designed to undermine Russia and its allies, saw the magnification of the power of federally funded secret state groups to manage policy and opinion abroad - and at home. (Links from Robert Parry's Consortium News).
In 1987, as the Reagan administration sought to intensify efforts to starve the Russian economy with trade embargoes, a young Antony Blinken published a book about the significance of Russian gas supplies to Europe for the anti-Russian alliance.
Blinken argued that the alliance between the US and Europe against Russia must be maintained, as European reliance on Russian gas would weaken attempts to collapse the Russian economy, undermining the project of regime change.
This is the neoconservative rationale for the exorbitant cost of Project Russia. The social and economic impacts of this four decade foreign policy obsession continue to mount. Europe faces an insoluble crisis as a result.
What is more, the doctrine of permanent war has been presented as a form of therapy for the West - a medicine of terminal illness prescribed by those who created the disease.
Since 2001, the United States has spent an estimated 8 trillion dollars to fight wars it has not won, to support a project which has destroyed democracy at home.
You can read about how this madness - and everything else - became “therapy” here:
Regime change began as a project to dominate the world. How is that going? At home and abroad, Project Global is in rapid decline.
So is your way of life.
In the next part I explain the social and economic factors caused by the forty year project of regime change.
This policy has profoundly degraded the West - morally, economically and socially. Though we inhabit its disastrous consequences, its impact has yet to be widely understood.
You can do your bit in the information war by spreading my anti-regime propaganda.
If you would like to entertain the futile aim of pacifying my wife, you could consider paying me for giving you these ideas.
Centralized governments have ever been the enemy of the people . Let us not forget that among the first official acts of the newly minted US government was to attack veterans of the War that installed said government who merely wished to be paid for services rendered and farmers who had converted their crop grains to whiskey in violation of no law .
Thank you for this fine analysis.
Regime change has been one of the key tools of the Anglo-American-Zionist Empire throughout its entire long history. One of the methods has been assassination, as with the murder of US President Abraham Lincoln by a conspiracy engineered by British-Confederate intelligence in 1865. The Ukraine War began with regime change in 2014 through the Maidan Coup carried out by the CIA, Nuland/Soros, and the Ukrainian Right Sector. So on it goes.
Please see my own book on the rise and decline of the Empire: "Our Country, Then and Now," published by Clarity Press in 2023. Readers are welcome to write me about it at monetaryreform@gmail.com.
https://www.amazon.com/Our-Country-Then-Richard-Cook/dp/1949762858