"We have exterminated a bacterium [Jews] because we did not want in the end to be infected by the bacterium and die of it. I will not see so much as a small area of sepsis appear here or gain a hold. Wherever it may form, we will cauterize it. All in all, we can say that we have fulfilled this most difficult duty for the love of our people. And our spirit, our soul, our character has not suffered injury from it,� Heinrich Himmler, Head of the Gestapo, [1] [Emphasis added]

�If we crowd in too many termite killers, each using a screwdriver to kill the termites, you risk collapsing the floors or the foundation. In this war, we are using screwdrivers to kill termites because it is a guerilla war and we cannot use bigger weapons. We have to get the right balance of termite killers to get rid of the termites without wrecking the house� Gen. William C. Westmoreland, Commander U.S. forces in Vietnam, 1967 [2] [Emphasis added]

as I stated in part 13, comparing two political systems with seemingly different backgrounds and history could present theoretical difficulties. The reason being, we tend to accept that the resulting dissimilarities might be evidence that similarities have no relevance. However, similarities have their own logic, and if methodically analyzed, they may neutralize or even cancel any other consideration. Consequently, comparing an entrenched and historically durable U.S. imperialism with the short-lived Nazi-imperialism is straightforward�both imperialisms thought and acted similarly in specific ideological and practical areas.

Hitler�s ideological manifestoes: If we exclude Hitler�s biographical confabulations of Mein Kampf and the more articulate program of the Nazi party of 1924, there would be no manifestoes left in the ideological storage of Nazism. This, however, does not exclude that massive Nazi propaganda, speeches, and edicts have eventually found their way to the German law and constitution under Hitler. Of course, all of these are important ideological elements that helped in the implementation of certain practices or in justifying them; but no Nazi figures promulgated them under names such as national doctrines with international ramifications, amendments, directives, bills, and acts. In addition, unlike the U.S. ideology of imperialism that developed over a long period, Hitler�s ideology of empire did not have sufficient time to implement on international level.

• Mein Kampf/Imperialism and its theological and secular motivations: Hitler�s most salient points on the concept of imperialism are, [3]:
• Racism: �Racial superiority of the Aryan race, hence of the German people.�
• Sphere of influence: Lebensraum (vital or living space for the German people)�in Hitler�s language this meant either recovering German lands lost in WWI, or where German-speaking populations lived in regions adjacent to Germany. But the real meaning of Lebensraum is the determination to practice colonialism by acquiring new colonies under the pretext of the growing German population.
• Nazi theology of imperialism: says Hitler, �Hence today I believe I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator; by defining myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
• Nazi principle of violence: says Hitler, �Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success . . . Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.

The Program of the German Workers' Party/Imperialism and its theological and secular motivations: The program of the Nazi Party contains two points out of the 25-point program that refer to the ideology of imperialism, [4]:

• Point 1: �We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.�
• Point 3: �We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.�

U.S. ideological manifestoes: From the Puritans� disembarking on the shores of America in 1628 to George Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003, successive U.S. presidents, politicians, military personalities, thinkers, historians, and opinion makers emulated each other to create doctrines and ideas to reinforce the imperialistic bent of the United States. If we skim through the history of U.S. doctrines, we will find that Monroe, Teddy Roosevelt via Henry Cabot Lodge, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Kissinger-Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Colin Powell, Clinton, and Wolfowitz-Bush II, and many others have all enshrined U.S. aggressive colonialistic imperialism in documents, studies, and Union Addresses.

What distinguishes these doctrines is their individual cumulative value. In other words, each doctrine builds on or adds new details of empire to the previous ones. Another common characteristic is a recurrent multi-pronged theme: expansionist military platforms, supremacist or racist beliefs, planned desire for direct control of foreign resources, and rationalized theological mystification of America�s role in the world.

U.S. Principles of Imperialism Versus Nazi Imperialism

• Racism: at the beginning of the American state, racial beliefs in the superiority of the British colonists toward Native American Indians permitted the near extermination of these, and the enslavement of over 3 million Africans. In modern U.S.A., American Indians still experience the confiscation of what remained of their lands, while the culture of discrimination or of racist attitudes against African-Americans and Hispanics continues unabated despite improvement and widespread collaboration among diverse racial groups.
• Sphere of influence: although U.S. ruling elites did not use terms such as Lebensraum, they invented its equivalent: national interests. Because imperialism with limitations placed on it cannot move forward, it must depend, therefore, on changing interpretations that serve its purpose. Accordingly, the U.S. used the �national interest� ruse to expand territorially, economically, and militarily, thus encroaching on the rest of the world. When the U.S. imposes on foreign countries to restructure their economies to meet �free market� rules, when it subverts the realties of every nation on earth, and when it issues politically motivated reports on the violation of �human rights� around the world, then it necessarily treats the globe as an American lebensraum.
• U.S. theology of imperialism: James Wallis in an article entitled Dangerous Religion writes, �Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, recalls Bush once saying, "I believe God wants me to be president." After Sept. 11, Michael Duffy wrote in Time magazine, the president spoke of "being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment." [5]
• U.S. principle of U.S. violence: let us cite George Kennan, Director of Policy Planning, State Department, 1948 who aimed at the same objective of the Nazis from a different angle. Says Kennan, �To maintain this position of disparity [U.S. military-economic supremacy] . . . we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming. . . . We should cease to talk about vague and . . . unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standard and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. . . . The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.� [6]
• On the concept of self-determination: on this issue, Hitler and the U.S. differ only marginally. While Hitler demanded the unification of all Germans in a Greater Germany based on the right of self-determination of the German people as a step toward European domination, the U.S. defines self-determination in different terms. U.S. ideologues want to unify the world under their imperialistic domination based on their sheer determination to abolish or subordinate the inherent rights for independence of all other nations to their exclusive interests.
• On the issue of colonization: the U.S. beats Germany of Hitler on all accounts. While Hitler prospected the repossession of lost African colonies and the possession of new ones, the U.S. history is nothing but a seamless chapter of brutal colonization and geo-strategic encroachments on the planet and its outer space.

The following is a list of the most important doctrines that shaped U.S. imperialism:

The Monroe Doctrine, 1823: said President James Monroe, �We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their [Europeans] part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States� [7]

This address to the Congress is the progenitor of all U.S. world expansionist doctrines. First, President Monroe declared the U.S. as the hegemonic power of almost one third of the globe. Second, as a president of a colonialist power, he acknowledged the rights of European colonialist powers to own colonies, but omitted freedom rights of the colonized populations. Third, he interpreted any move by European powers in the Western hemisphere as a danger to U.S. safety. This interpretation had led, later, U.S. rulers to camouflage their world expansion under the pretense of security. In the end, we reached the explosive imperialist point where U.S. rulers began claiming that anything that happens within world societies is a potential threat to the national security of the hyper-empire, unless they approve of it.

Invariably, U.S. interpretations are nothing more than alibis to create colonialistic and imperialistic attitudes that eventually cemented U.S. interventionist policy worldwide. Furthermore, it is of interest to note that Monroe used imperialistic psychology to label colonialist competition as manifestation of unfriendly disposition toward the United States. George Bush used the same concept in 2001 as when he asked countries to show their friendliness to the U.S. by taking part in his Zionist crusade against Arab and Muslim nations.

Manifest Destiny, 1845: Manifest Destiny is a phrase coined by Editor John O�Sullivan to represent the basic idea of U.S. colonialist expansion. Says O�Sullivan, ". . . . the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federative development of self government entrusted to us. It is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth." (Emphasis added) [8]

First, O�Sullivan used the �Providence� as justification for territorial expansion, whereas in no scripture has ever the �Providence� gave any such instruction to British white settlers or their progeny. Second, he translated his �divine� interpretation to total colonialist greed as in � . . . To possess the whole continent . . . etc.� This meant severing Native Nations from their natural environment and disconnecting their socio-historical and geographical continuity.

The Carter Doctrine, 1980: President Carter is a precocious hyper-imperialist, and a hegemonic Monroe-ist from top to bottom. In what has become his doctrine, Carter stated the following: "Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America. And such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." [9]

The most interesting thing about the Carter Doctrine is that a zealot crusading president (Bush) had changed its premise. Instead of the imagined Soviet takeover of the Middle East, we ended up with the U.S. takeover of the same. Bush clearly settled, temporarily, the issue on which among imperialist powers can have the means to rule Iraq and the Middle East. I said temporarily, because the U.S. with its farce of Iraqi sovereignty completed on June 28, 2004 and with the tireless Iraqi uprising against its imperialist rule, is yet to conquer the country; but in order to do so, the U.S. has to factor the implacable forces of history in its calculations.

As a doctrinaire, Carter is one among the many architects of American aggressiveness in the world�he created the Rapid Deployment Force, by which U.S. imperialists could quickly intervene, as they wish, in the so-called �hot spots� of the world.

The Reagan Doctrine, 1985: Ronald Reagan, who once attributed atmospheric pollution to C0₂ emitted from trees, is the godfather of Evangelical American military interventionism. Ted Galen Carpenter, foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute explains the Reagan Doctrine as follows:

The Doctrine surfaced at the president's February 1985 State of the Union Address when he affirmed, �We must not break faith with those who are risking their lives�on every continent from Afghanistan to Nicaragua�to defy Soviet aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth. Support for freedom fighters is self-defense.� [10]

Carpenter adds: "Secretary of State George P. Shultz [11] expanded on this embryonic policy assumption in a February 22, 1985, speech before San Francisco's Commonwealth Club. There and in a subsequent Foreign Affairs article, Shultz asserted that a wave of democratic revolutions was sweeping the world. He contended that for years the USSR and its proxies have acted without restraint to back insurgencies designed to spread communist dictatorships. Wars of national liberation �became the pretext for subverting any non-communist country in the name of so-called socialist internationalism.� At the same time, the infamous �Brezhneve Doctrine� proclaimed that any victory of communism was irreversible. According to Shultz, the Soviets were saying to the world: �What's mine is mine. What's yours is up for grabs� (emphasis by Carpenter)

Reagan, being the progenitor in using the theological word evil in modern U.S. politics (evil empire, i.e., USSR), paved the way for George W. Bush to use the same in his infamous phrase �axis of evil.� Psychologically there is either a distinct intentional dualism in the thinking of U.S. politicians when they view aggressions by others and aggressions they make or a calculated strategy aimed at preventive accusations for initiating aggressions.

The passage where Regan declares, � . . . and secure rights which have been ours from birth� is the essential imperialistic creed of the United States. Obviously, Reagan considered controlling the world and its population, the birthright of American imperialists. In this regard, he equalled Hitler when he declared the Arian race the fittest to rule over others. (Emphasis added)

George Shultz, on the other hand, is a tactician of imperialistic distortions. First, he considered any popular uprising or war of liberation against tyranny, neo-colonialism, and U.S.-backed fascist dictatorships in developing countries as communist subversion. Second, Shultz, an imperialist skilled in the practice of obliterating the freedom of choice of other nations, spoke of �democratic revolution,� without providing a clue about what he meant by �democratic.� Third, and this is an American demogogic practice, he considered the USSR world policy as an attempt to spread Soviet influence in name of socialist interventionism; but, as expected, he completely ignored U.S. world interventionism that is habitually made in the name of �democracy.� As for the pharse, �what is mine is mine, etc.,� This is risible American propganda, as the U.S. history is nothing but naked piracy, and had always for a motto, �what yours is up for grab,� of which, the seizer of Iraqi oilfields is the latest episode.

National Space Policy Doctrine, 1996: a reading in the basic philosophy of space exploration guidelines of the United States would show the many hegemonic sides of U.S. imperialism and its ideological making. In September 1996, the National Science and Technology Council issued general directives on the matter. [12] The following are the main points attesting to imperialistic intentions to dominate outer space, as reported in the introduction.

 . . . We will maintain this leadership role by supporting a strong, stable and balanced national space program that serves our goals in national security, foreign policy, economic growth, environmental stewardship and scientific and technical excellence. Access to and use of space is central for preserving peace and protecting U.S. national security as well as civil and commercial interests. The United States will pursue greater levels of partnership and cooperation in national and international space activities and work with other nations to ensure the continued exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes.

Among the goals that related to implementing imperialism are items (b) and (e):

 (b) Strengthen and maintain the national security of the United State.

 (e) Promote international cooperation to further U.S. domestic, national security, and foreign policies.

Although the U.S. concept of imperialism is vast, its ideological keywords are limited and immutable. Among these are American values, national security, vital interests, freedom, democracy, market economy. In short, any U.S. official document or declaration, that contains these words or similar is necessarily relevant to U.S. imperialism as it proceeds to exercise its control and expansion.

Rebuilding America�s defenses: Strategies, forces and resources for a new American Century, 2000 (by the Zionist think-tank, the Project for the American Century)

Clean Break: A new Strategy for securing the realms, 1996 (a study conducted by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel)

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSSUSA), 2002 (By the National Security Agency)

Among all American doctrines, none can beat the three doctrines I just mentioned. Collectively, these represent the pillars of U.S. hyper-imperialism. Because these doctrines are inseparable and form a unified core (Zionists of all extractions wrote and implemented them), I shall analyze them as a unit in an upcoming part of this series. In particular, the NSSUSA 2002 is the culmination of Zionist control of U.S. foreign policy and hence of U.S. imperialism. By all accounts, the authors of the NSSUSA and its principle argument�war of preemption�have prepared it with the specific intent to conquer Iraq and the Middle East on behalf of Israel and of U.S. Zionists.

The NSSUSA 2002 is not about American national security at all. It is an affirmation of U.S. supremacist posturing; a declaration of permanent war against the rest of world; a military warning that only the American model is the viable model for humanity; and it is a blueprint for military domination of the globe. Technically, the NSSUSA 2000 is a reminder that Hitlerism as ideology of nationalist superiority and military force can change its name and time, but cannot change its fundamental nature. Here, I shall only cite the first sentence of the introduction as signed by President George W. Bush:

The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom�and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise� [13]

U.S. doctrinaires of the hyper-imperialism who wrote the document used three rhetorical elements of propaganda. First, they shrewdly applied the religious theology of the antipodes on politics as in �liberty vs. totalitarianism.� This is equivalent to �good vs. evil.� Second, while they imperialistically cancelled all other possible socio-economic models of development of world societies, they consecrated capitalism, as in �a single sustainable model� as the only logical model. This is pure ideological dictatorship, as no economist, freethinker, or politician can provide evidence that capitalism as dictated by the United States is the only economic answer to the needs of humanity.

NOTES

 [1] Quoted in Jeremy Noakes and Geoffrey Rodham, ed., Documents on Nazism 1919�1945, (New York: The Viking Press, 1975), p. 493.

[2] Quoted in Richard Drinnon, Facing West, (Schocken Books, 1980), p. 448

[3] http://shs.westport.k12.ct.us/muson/AP%20Mod/World%20War%20II/mein_kampf.htm

[4] http://www.hitler.org/writings/programme/

[5] http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&article=030910

[6] http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/RevealingQuotes1.html

[7] http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/monrodoc.html

[8] http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/manifest/manif1.htm

[9] 1980 State of the Union address

[10] Cato Institute�U.S. Aid to Anti-Communist Rebels: The 'Reagan Doctrine' and Its Pitfalls

[11] George P. Shultz

[12] http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/national/nstc-8.htm

[13] http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

Next: Part 16: American Modified and Accepted Hitlerism: Comparisons and conclusions (4 of 4)