Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (American Empire Project) 1st Edition
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
|
MP3 CD, Audiobook, MP3 Audio, Unabridged
"Please retry" | $10.98 | — |
Explore your book, then jump right back to where you left off with Page Flip.
View high quality images that let you zoom in to take a closer look.
Enjoy features only possible in digital – start reading right away, carry your library with you, adjust the font, create shareable notes and highlights, and more.
Discover additional details about the events, people, and places in your book, with Wikipedia integration.
Blowback trilogy confronts the overreaching of the American empire and the threat it poses to the republic
In his prophetic book Blowback, Chalmers Johnson linked the CIA's clandestine activities abroad to disaster at home. In The Sorrows of Empire, he explored the ways in which the growth of American militarism and the garrisoning of the planet have jeopardized our stability. Now, in Nemesis, he shows how imperial overstretch is undermining the republic itself, both economically and politically.
Delving into new areas--from plans to militarize outer space to Constitution-breaking presidential activities at home and the devastating corruption of a toothless Congress--Nemesis offers a striking description of the trap into which the dreams of America's leaders have taken us. Drawing comparisons to empires past, Johnson explores in vivid detail just what the unintended consequences of our dependence on a permanent war economy are likely to be. What does it mean when a nation's main intelligence organization becomes the president's secret army? Or when the globe's sole "hyperpower," no longer capable of paying for the vaulting ambitions of its leaders, becomes the greatest hyper-debtor of all times?
In his stunning conclusion, Johnson suggests that financial bankruptcy could herald the breakdown of constitutional government in America--a crisis that may ultimately prove to be the only path to a renewed nation.
- Edition1st
- PublisherMetropolitan Books
- Publication dateFebruary 6, 2007
- LanguageEnglish
- Dimensions6.46 x 1.27 x 9.46 inches
- Print length368 pages
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
From Booklist
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
Review
"Nemesis, the final volume in the remarkable Blowback trilogy, completes a true patriot's anguished and devastating critique of the militarism that threatens to destroy the United States from within. In detail and with unflinching candor, Chalmers Johnson decries the discrepancies between what America professes to be and what it has actually become--a global empire of military bases and operations; a secret government increasingly characterized by covert activities, enormous 'black' budgets, and near dictatorial executive power; a misguided republic that has betrayed its noblest ideals and most basic founding principals in pursuit of disastrously conceived notions of security, stability, and progress."--John Dower, author of Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II "Chalmers Johnson's voice has never been more urgently needed, and in Nemesis it rings with eloquence, clarity, and truth."--James Carroll, author of House of War "Nemesis is a stimulating, sweeping study in which Johnson asks a most profound strategic question: Can we maintain the global dominance we now regard as our natural right? His answer is chilling. You do not have to agree with everything Johnson says--I don't--but if you agree with even half of his policy critiques, you will still slam the book down on the table, swearing, 'We have to change this!'"
--Joseph Cirincione, Senior Vice President for National Security and International Policy, Center for American Progress "Nemesis is a five-alarm warning about flaming militarism, burning imperial attitudes, secret armies, and executive arrogance that has torched and consumed the Constitution and brought the American Republic to death's door. Johnson shares a simple, liberating, and healing path back to worthy republicanism. But the frightening and heart-breaking details contained in Nemesis suggest that the goddess of retribution will not be so easily satisfied before 'the right order of things' is restored."--Karen Kwiatkowski, retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel "Last fall a treasonous Congress gave the president license to kidnap, torture--you name it--on an imperial scale. All of us, citizens and non-citizens alike, are fair game. Kudos for not being silent, Chalmers, and for completing your revealing trilogy with undaunted courage."--Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst; co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
About the Author
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Militarism and the Breakdown of Constitutional Government
Last week, filled with grief and sorrow for those killed and injured and with anger at those who had done this, I confronted the solemn responsibility of voting to authorize the country to go to war. Some believe this resolution was only symbolic, designed to show national resolve. But I could not ignore that it provided explicit authority, under the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution, to go to war. It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the September 11 events--anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation's long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit. In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration. I could not support such a grant of war-making authority to the president; I believe it would put more innocent lives at risk.
--Congresswoman Barbara Lee ([Democrat from California], the
only member of Congress to vote against the transfer of the war
power to the president for the invasion of Afghanistan),
San Francisco Chronicle, September 23, 2001
One of the oddest features of political life in the United States in the years since the terrorist attacks is how few people have thought or acted like Barbara Lee. The public expresses itself in opinion polls, which some students of politics scrutinize intently, but there is little passion in the society, certainly none proportionate to the threats facing our democratic republic. The United States today is like a cruise ship on the Niagara River upstream of the most spectacular falls in North America. A few people on board have begun to pick up a slight hiss in the background, to observe a faint haze of mist in the air or on their glasses, to note that the river current seems to be running slightly faster. But no one yet seems to have realized that it is almost too late to head for shore.
Like the Chinese, Ottoman, Hapsburg, imperial German, Nazi, imperial Japanese, British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, and Soviet empires in the last century, we are approaching the edge of a huge waterfall and are about to plunge over it.
If the American democratic system is no longer working as planned, if the constitutional checks and balances as well as other structures put in place by the founders to prevent tyranny are increasingly less operational, we have not completely lacked for witnesses of every stripe, domestic and foreign. General Tommy Franks, commander of the American assault on Baghdad, for instance, went so far as to predict that another serious terrorist attack on the United States would "begin to unravel the fabric of our Constitution," and under such circumstances, he was open to the idea that "the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government."1 The historian Kevin Baker feared that we are no longer far from the day when, like the Roman Senate in 27 bc, our Congress will take its last meaningful vote and turn over power to a military dictator. "In the end, we'll beg for the coup," he wrote.2
On October 10, 2002, Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat from West Virginia) asked plaintively about the separation of powers, "Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? . . . The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step."3 Nonetheless, the following day, the resolution carried by a 77-23 vote in the Senate and 296-133 in the House of Representatives. The Berkshire Eagle editorialized, "The Senate, which was designed by the framers of the Constitution to act as a brake on the popular passions of the day, was little more than a speed bump under the White House steamroller."4 The libertarian writer Bill Winter conjectured that the problem was "the monarchization of America under Bush."5 Adam Young, a Canadian political commentator, wondered, "How did the chief magistrate of a confederated republic degrade into the global tyrant we experience today, part secular pope, part military despot, part pseudo-philosopher-king and full-time overbearing global gangster?"6 Indeed, that is the question for all of us.
Former British foreign secretary Robin Cook noted that "[a]ll the checks and balances that the founding fathers constructed to restrain presidential power are broken instruments." Cook observed the hubris and megalomania that flowed from this in John Bolton, then the number three official at the State Department (subsequently ambassador to the United Nations). When asked about possible incentives that might cause Iran to end its nuclear ambitions, Bolton replied, "I don't do carrots." Cook accurately predicted that members of the Bush administration "will . . . celebrate their [2004] election victory by putting [the Iraqi city of] Fallujah to the torch," as they did that very November.7
Marine general Anthony Zinni, General Franks's predecessor as Centcom commander in the Middle East, worried about the way the Pentagon was further expanding its powers at the expense of other agencies of government. "Why the hell," he asked, "would the Department of Defense be the organization in our government that deals with the reconstruction of Iraq? Doesn't make sense."8 One anonymous foreign service officer supplied an answer to Los Angeles Times reporter Sonni Efron, "I just wake up in the morning and tell myself, 'There's been a military coup,' and then it all makes sense."9 Even the president himself was a witness of sorts to the changes under way, baldly asserting at a White House press conference on April 13, 2004, that he was "the ultimate decision-maker for this country"--a notion that would have appalled the authors of the Constitution.10
I believe that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have led the country into a perilous cul-de-sac, but they did not do it alone and removing them from office will not necessarily solve the problem. The crisis of government in the United States has been building at least since World War II. The emergence of the imperial presidency and the atrophying of the legislative and judicial branches have deep roots in the postwar military-industrial complex, in the way broad sectors of the public have accepted the military as our most effective public institution, and in aberrations in our electoral system. The interesting issue is not the damage done by Bush, Cheney, and their followers but how they were able to get away with it, given the barriers that exist in the Constitution to prevent just the sorts of misuses of power for which they have become notorious.
Historian Carol Berkin in her book A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the Constitution argues that the nation's "Founders--including George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania and dozens of others--envisioned a supreme legislative branch as the heart and soul of America's central government. . . . America's modern presidency, with all its trappings, would be unimaginable to men like Madison, Washington, and Franklin. Of all those historic figures at the 1787 [Constitutional] Convention, perhaps only Alexander Hamilton would relish today's playing of 'Hail to the Chief.' "11
The intent of the founders was to prevent a recurrence of the tyranny they had endured under Britain's King George III. They bent all their ingenuity and practical experience to preventing tyrannies of one, of the few, of a majority, of the monied classes, or of any other group that might obtain and exercise unchecked power, often adopting institutional precedents from the Roman Republic. Inspired by the French political philosopher Montesquieu's discussion of the "separation of powers" in his On the Spirit of the Laws, published in 1748, the drafters of the American Constitution produced a sophisticated scheme to balance power in a republic. The most basic structure they chose was federalism, setting up the states as alternatives to and limitations on the power of the national government. Congress was given that quintessential parliamentary power--control of the budget--without which it would be merely an ornamental body like the "people's congresses" in communist-dominated countries. Congress was also charged with initiating all legislation, making the final decision to go to war, and if necessary getting rid of an unsatisfactory president by impeachment, something also achievable through periodic elections. To moderate the power of Congress somewhat, the Constitution divided it into two quite differently elected and apportioned houses, each capable of vetoing the other's decisions.
Both houses of Congress must ultimately pass all laws, and the president, who is entrusted with implementing them, is given a veto as well. The Congress, in turn, can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds vote, and even when Congress and the president agree on a law, the Supreme Court, exercising the function of interpreting the laws, can still declare it unconstitutional. The president and members of Congress must be re-elected or leave office, but judges serve for life, although Congress can impeach them. The president nominates the heads of the cabinet departments, who serve at his pleasure, as well as all judges, but the Senate must approve them.
Over time, this balance-of-power spirit came to influence other institutions of government that the Constitution did not mention, including the armed forces, where competition among the services--the army, navy, air force, and Marine Corps--dilutes somewhat the enormous coercive power entrusted to them.12 To prevent a tyranny of the majority, the Constitution authorizes fixed terms and fixed times for elections (borrowed from the Roman Republic) as a way to interfere with the monopolization of power by an individual, an oligarchy, or a political party.
Unfortunately, after more than two centuries (about the same length of time...
Product details
- ASIN : B001P3OMM8
- Publisher : Metropolitan Books; 1st edition (February 6, 2007)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 368 pages
- Item Weight : 1.4 pounds
- Dimensions : 6.46 x 1.27 x 9.46 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #6,732,186 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #9,261 in National & International Security (Books)
- #18,203 in Deals in Books
- #30,729 in History & Theory of Politics
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Chalmers Johnson, president of the Japan Policy Research Institute, is the author of the bestselling Blowback and The Sorrows of Empire. A frequent contributor to the Los Angeles Times, the London Review of Books, and The Nation, he appeared in the 2005 prizewinning documentary film Why We Fight. He lives near San Diego.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
"Keynesianism" is named for the great British economist John Maynard Keynes who wrote "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" (about the disastrous economic consequences of the Versaille Treaty - which would eventually lead to Hitler), "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" published in 1936 and other influential books. In his writings and public career he developed a scheme to save captitalist economies from cycles of boom and bust as well as the severe decline of consumer spending that occurs in periods of depression. To prevent the economy from contracting and the social unrest that might ensue, Keynes thought that the government should step in, and, through deficit spending, put people back to work. Conversely, during periods of prosperity, he thought government should cut spending and rebuild the treasury. He called his plan counter-cyclical "pump-priming."
During the New Deal in the 1930s the United States put Keynesianism into practice with great success but they also saw the rudimentary beginnings of a backlash. Conservative capitalists feared that too much government intervention would delegitimate and demystify capitalism as an economic system that works by allegedly "quasi-natural laws." They also feared that too much spending on social welfare might shift the balance of power in society from the capitalist class to the working class and its unions. At first they tried to hold back counter-cyclical spending but World War II intervened and unleashed a torrent of public funds for weapons.
The term "Military Keynesianism" was coined in 1943 by the Polish economist in exile Micha Kalecki to explain Nazi Germany's success in overcoming the Great Depression and achieving full employment. Before World War II Hitler was celebrated around for world for having achieved a "German economic miracle." However, this was accomplished by employing counter cyclical pump-priming for military purposes. The military thus becomes an employer of last resort, like the old Civilian Conservation Corps but on a much larger scale. The negative aspects of Military Keynesianism include its encouragement of militarism and the potential to encourage a military-industrial complex. Such a complex sooner or later short circuits Keynes insistence that government spending be cut back in times of nearly full employment - in other words it becomes a permanent institution whose "pump" must always be primed.
The two most prominent generals in our history have given us warnings of the dangers militarism in a democracy. George Washington, in his farewell address, warns about the threat of standing armies to liberty, and particularly republican liberty. And perhaps the more famous one, Dwight Eisenhower, also in in his farewell address, where he invented the phrase "military-industrial complex" - he wanted to say "military-industrial-congressional complex" but was advised not to go that far. Today, fifty years later, the "miitary-industrial-congressional complex" is a fact of life and has permeated into all but a handful of Congressional districts.
The Pentagon tries to conceal the real cost of the military in various ways. There are numerous military activities not carried on by the Dept. of Defense and are, therefore, not part of the Defense Budget. Adding the non-Defense Deptartment expenditures, the supplemental approriations for whatever wars are being fought at the time, and the military contruction budget to the Defense Appropriations Bill actuallly doubles what the government calls the annual defnse budget. It is an amount larger than all other defense budgets on earth. Still to be covered are interest payments for the cost of past wars going back to 1916!
The combination of huge standing armies, almost continuous wars, and ruinous military expenses have destroyed our republican structure in favor an imperial presidency. Once a nation is started down that path, the dynamics that apply to all empires come into play: isolation, overstretch, the uniting of forces opposed to imperialsim and bankruptcy. Our present policies appear to be unsustainable; we can't go on like this indefinitely. As Herbert Stein, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors during the Nixon Administration, once famously said: "Things that can't go on forever, don't."
Top reviews from other countries
For him, the heart of the matter is `military Keynesianism' (the US economy is mightily based on weapon manufacturing) and the goal of the military-intelligence community (full spectrum dominance over the world and in space).
But this imperial adventure is far too costly. The US spends more on armed forces than all other nations on earth combined, for more than 737 military bases in more than 130 countries. Also, space weapons are pure waste. A space shield doesn't work, because weapons cannot make a distinction between warheads and free floating space debris. `The neoconservative lobbyists are only interested in the staggering sums required.'
The US enormous military budget (of which 40 % is secret) is not paid by US taxpayers, but by foreign investors in US debt.
In the meantime, democracy is undermined. Chalmers Johnson doesn't see `any president or Congress standing up to the powerful vested interests of the Pentagon, the secret intelligence agencies and the military-industrial complex.' The separation of powers is becoming a dead letter. The legislative and the judicial branches have lost their independence.
The author is extremely hard for the current government, calling members of the Administration `desk-murderers'. For him, `putting the ruler above the law is the very definition of dictatorship.' Its TIA (Total Information Awareness) program `is the perfect US computer version of Gestapo and KGB files.' He is extremely angry with the US media, calling them `Pravda-like mouthpieces of the powerful.'
For him, what Congress really should do is abolish the CIA and remove all purely military functions from the Pentagon.
This hard-hitting book is more than a very solid warning. It is a must read for all those interested in the future of mankind.
For a view from the South, I highly recommend `Dilemmas of Domination' by Walden Bello.







