Talk:Project for the New American Century

No more original research

There's no more original research in this heavily improved section, so any discussion of the current edit should be under this section and only refering to the current resources and the wording I've used now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.26.189.18 (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the IP contributor from Vienna that the speculation on politically useful genetically targeted biological weapons was among the more egregious and provocative statements within this arrogant war mongering 'study.' It bothered others, as the supplied references show, and should be pointed out as careless and dangerous conjecture on the future of warfare! The art of war indeed! I'm a Vietnam era vet who was advocating for cooperative space development when this paper was published and I showed it to many people as an example of the danger of the military industrial complex influenced by individuals who argued for military solutions with no personal military experience! It is perhaps telling that the principal author of RAD now identifies as a woman-- a bit of overcompensating in the past? Bkobres (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort, time and support in showing this example of potential danger to the future of mankind in the form of military "science" for methods of such future warfare to other experts in this field, and I'm glad and it's relieving to know others perceive this threat as well. I'm a bachelor in cultural and social anthropology with a specialization in medical anthropology and a family background in the military industrial complex and began to develop growing interest in military science and secret services through the interconnections of the Project ARTICHOKE, CHATTER, MIDNIGHT CLIMAX, MKULTRA, STARGATE projects with the redlight milieu and Propaganda Due's Silvio "Bunga Bunga" Berlusconi, as well as the AAONMS' (International) Royal Order of Jesters the FBI has been investigating, which perfectly fit these economic fields and thematically also fit the oriental focus of PNAC, at least in the form of yet manifested wars. The Moroccan witness Imane Fadil in the Bunga Bunga trial against Berlusconi had probably been (radioactively) poisoned lately and died on March 1st 2019, high levels of metals have been found in her body. Political poisonings have been practiced for millenia, but this proposal to target whole kinds of human beings for political profit with "scientifically" derived (bio)chemical (and genetically operating) warfare methods, is taking it to a (or since the Nazi human "experimentation"/torture and mass murder programs already not so) new level (which have been partially adopted in ARTICHOKE/MKULTRA, after importing Dr. Kurt Blome in OVERCAST/PAPERCLIP). Berlusconi had been active as Propaganda Due's media czar for the right in Italy during the Stay-Behind's (also post-)"Strategy of Tension"-years, dispensing anti-communist propaganda in the same style PNAC produced Anti-Afghanistan, Anti-Iraq, Anti-Iran, Anti-North Korea, Anti-Somalia, Anti-Syria, Anti-Libya, Anti-Venezuela and Anti-Islam propaganda through their Washington Post and Weekly Standard outlets into the political media sphere since 1997, as well as increasingly after their "new Pearl Harbor", that had been described as "absent" in their September 2000 blueprint for "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", became a manifest reality in the following year: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/witness-in-berlusconi-s-bunga-bunga-trial-poisoned-f27h7qd5c https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney#/media/File:Silvio_Berlusconi_to_a_joint_session_of_Congress.jpg https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/buffalo/press-releases/2010/bffo111910.htm http://web.archive.org/web/20160503154214/http://sandyfrost.newsvine.com:80/_news/2008/12/07/2188846-jester-prostitution-updates-stebick-sentenced http://web.archive.org/web/20170808193030/https://sandyfrost.newsvine.com/_news/2008/04/12/1424688-judge-central-figure-in-fbi-probe-the-sobib-and-the-jesters-half-million-dollar-weekend-parties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:1845:7400:50B:1973:89E8:72C1 (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I have problems with a lot of the sources being used the proposed addition. Mackay's book seems like crankery - I don't think it passes WP:RS or W:DUE to devote an entire section to it. Coldtype don't look like they pas WP:RS, either. The Sunday Herald source doesn't mention it the genotype-targeting quote at all. And the other sources (eg. Scoop, which isn't a great source) only mention PNAC in passing - it's not clear what relevance this has to them beyond the fact that they mentioned it in a paper. The implication you're trying to draw from this quote - that PNAC advocated using genetic warfare, rather than warning about it - is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and requires better sourcing than this. --Aquillion (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Award-winning authors are not publishing "crankery", but heavily sourced, professional and reliable sources and nowhere is mentioned in my current edit version, that PNAC is promoting genetical warfare, but only that it classifies it as a "politcally useful tool", when these weapons are taken out of the "realm of terrorism", but that it nowhere explicitly mentions their (un)intentional dangers. Both facts that are discussed in the quoted articles, are caused directly by PNAC itself, in their own main strategic blueprint. Everything else, including the only valid argument of original research, had been removed to establish consensus, by quoting the articles and books which discuss PNAC's quote. The Sunday Herald article doesn't mention PNAC "in passing", but it is the central object of analysis of a very short article solely on that matter and I quoted it for the part that "One of the first journalists, Neil MacKay, to show PNAC's plans for the invasion of Iraq had been detailed before the September 11 attacks," and not for the PNAC quote itself, but the greater political context of PNAC. There's not a single source quoted yet, which shows that this quote by PNAC doesn't exist and everything else had been corrected yet and the only "argument" here is a distaste for professional articles and books written by award-winning authors, who show the facts on a Republican think tank, especially by an edit-war inducing user who had already been banned from editing other Republican movement (Tea Party) articles and mentions himself being mentioned in an article by the "(far-right) news" on his own user page.

@Aquillion: To establish consensus with you, I have no problem with moving it to the "Critics" section as an under-section, but set aside what PNAC did intent when they had called it a "politically useful tool" when biological warfare that is able to target certain genotypes, is "taken out of the realm of terror", it is a dangerous idea on solely scientific grounds, too and these aren't mentioned anywhere in R.A.D., so it seems they don't have thought about the effects on the (un)intentional targets at all, or at least they have thought it wouldn't be good to openly mention them. It has got to be one of these two ways: lack of care for the potential effects, or tactical behaviour to not mention their thoughts on these issues, otherwise there would be a more precise valueing than "politically useful tool" found about these weapons in R.A.D.. I haven't proposed anywhere in the current edit that PNAC advocated these weapons, but that they don't mention the potential effects on their (un)intentional targets, while PNAC called it "a politically useful tool" in other hands than those of terrorists, not me. That is their own wording, not mine. And these facts are discussed in the referenced articles and books by award-winning authors you try to discredit by obviously not reading their articles before judging them (Sunday Herald/Thomas Hartmann; Hartmann mentions PNAC 3 times in this short article solely analyzing this matter, not in passing), which too have a rigorous referencing policy and quote sources. I haven't seen a quote by a reliable source by you yet, which would show that PNAC's quotes are non-existent in R.A.D., or that these award-winning authors are not referencing facts they rigorously quote. To remove the Scoop association, I'll reference it from Hartmann's own site, or better from CommonDreams.org, where it was posted first, according to Wikipedia a "501(c)3 nonprofit U.S.-based progressive news website" that has "never accepted advertisements or special interest money since its inception, sustaining itself through the contributions of its members and readers, with a few foundation grants along the way. This policy was established to assure its independence as a media outlet." You're reading an implication in(to) my edit, I don't even make there, instead they are PNAC R.A.D. quotes discussed in articles especially written about PNAC's main strategic blueprint, their valueing of "biological warfare targeting certain genotypes" as a "politically useful tool", when it is taken from the realm of terrorism and their general policies, calling for multiple wars across our planet. I only cite facts in the current edit and have removed any political implication, or opinion, solely sticking to the scientific facts, as a cultural and social anthropologist with a specialization in medical anthropology.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

==Biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes==

On page 60 (72 in the PDF) R.A.D. includes this statement: „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.“ One of the first journalists, Neil MacKay, to show PNAC's plans for the invasion of Iraq had been detailed before the September 11 attacks, mentions and analyzes this quote in his 2006 book War Against Truth. Thomas Hartmann shows that the implications of this quote are an analyzation of the potential political profit of this "politically useful tool" which is discussed in R.A.D., but nowhere are the effects on its' "targets" mentioned in PNAC's main strategic blueprint. 2A02:8388:1845:7400:A4D6:2DD2:E150:F130 (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Gangster8192 02:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

X=not yet in the article Y=my edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:1845:7400:783A:E550:3360:F225 (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Consensus

The consensus of Bkobres, me and factual reality is, that there's official evidence from PNAC's official main strategic blueprint and those who neglect it, have no arguments, other than their right-wing (Breitbart) opinions, while I present multiple award-winning journalists' sources (instead of "original research"), who explicitly cite thie quote in their reliable sources and discuss it in detail. It's a clear breach of Article III of the UN Biological Weapons Convention, too, if you understand the implications of this quote. If you obviously don't, please keep from censoring it in a fascistoid Stalinist manner, which tries to deny actual reality by keeping officially released sources from the public, to manifest their oppression more easily for(/with) the politically responsible forces' pawns behind it. 185.26.189.18 (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

At least one other editor disagrees, so I do not see clear consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Disagrees without any factual evidence, officially documented proof for a source of his disagreement and nothing that would deny the factual, official evidence. Only because somebody doesn't agree with Einstein's relativity theory, it doesn't enable me to delete it from Wikipedia and this is way more proven to be factual reality, than Einstein's theories, which are still theory. The quote is evidence, not theory. I've even kept the Article III BWC breach out of it, due to that, although it's clearly obvious, that it at least indirectly "encourages or induces anyone else" to acquire or retain biological weapons.185.26.189.18 (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your edits. I have trouble in seeing differences between your text and C.Fred's text. Dimadick (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2019

I want the officially published official quote from the official main strategic paper by PNAC, which is discussed by award-winning journalists in reliable sources to be included in the article, which is yet to be included to fulfill Wikipedia guidelines of neutrality and diversity of viewpoints:

X=censorship of this official PNAC quote, Y=inclusion of this official PNAC quote

Please change the on-going censorship of this official PNAC quote:

==Biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes==

On page 60 (72 in the PDF) R.A.D. includes this statement: „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.“ One of the first journalists, Neil MacKay, to show PNAC's plans for the invasion of Iraq had been detailed before the September 11 attacks, mentions and analyzes this quote in his 2006 book War Against Truth. Thomas Hartmann shows that the implications of this quote are an analyzation of the potential political profit of this "politically useful tool" which is discussed in R.A.D., but nowhere are the effects on its' "targets" mentioned in PNAC's main strategic blueprint. 2A02:8388:1845:7400:A4D6:2DD2:E150:F130 (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC) 185.26.189.18 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Levivich 00:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)