The Pentagon is an extremely symbolic building. Even though it’s pentagonal shape comes from that of the first lot where it was supposed to be built, it could perfectly be rejected when the project moved to its definitive location, a new lot that had no pentagonal shape at all, but it wasn’t. So, why keeping a pentagon? Perhaps because FDR saw in it the perfect representation for his wishes of domination over the 5 continents? This pentagonal shape needs to be understood as an extrapolation of Bentham’s panoptical buildings, designed for a better control of convicted people, and which Foucault used for his arguments about homogeneous effects on power in ”Discipline and Punish”. In fact, the Pentagon’s tennant, the US Department of Defense, is not worried about watching the people inside the same building. They are actually much busier watching the whole world, as if it was a magnified convicted individual. A perfected, and more up to date, version of this sort of panoptical extrapolation can be found in the new headquarters of Apple, in Cupertino, CA., designed by Foster $ Partners. Needless to say that Apple also controls the world, in assistance with the US government. But what has it all to do with the White House? Since the 1940s and for over several decades, western society understood that the different military operations in which the United States got involved, especially those that ended up as wars, were strictly necessary. In fact, there’s no single President of the United States since the Pentagon was built, that hasn’t justified the need of taking military actions overseas, hasn’t increased the defense budget or hasn’t boasted about the American military power. Quoting: H.S. Truman: “A short time ago, an American aeroplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima.” D. Eisenhower: “We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.” JFK: “The threat is worldwide. Our effort must be equally wide and strong.” Lyndon B Johnson: “Vietnam is the arena where Communist expansionism is most aggressively at work in the world today”. Richard Nixon: “If we, on our side, reduce our forces, there will be no deal. And you wouldn't make a deal if you were in their position either.” Gerald Ford: “You don't negotiate with Mr. Brezhnev from weakness.” referring to the defense cuts that Mr Carter wanted. Jimmy Carter: “This intolerable dependence on foreign oil threatens our economic independence and the very security of our nation.” Ronald Reagan: “I said that we would act with others, if possible, and alone if necessary to ensure that terrorists have no sanctuary anywhere." George Bush: “I have therefore directed General Norman Schwarzkopf to use all forces available to eject the Iraqi army from Kuwait.” Bill Clinton: “From the first days of our Revolution, America’s security has depended on the clarity of this message: don’t tread on us”. George W. Bush: “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” Barack Obama: “Now, keep in mind that our military spending has gone up every single year that I've been in office. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined.” Candidate Hillary Clinton: “Now let’s remember here. The people we are fighting today, we funded.” Donald Trump: “I’m going to make our military so big, so powerful, so strong, that nobody — absolutely nobody — is gonna mess with us.” Even if minority, there have always been demonstrations, especially in the US, against military actions of all kinds. However, it has actually been more recently, when a growing segment of our society has found out that many of those present and past military actions were based on false assumptions of threat as they were targeted against artificially created enemies, who were, not by chance, former allies. Today, in consequence, there’s nothing more dangerous, and degrading at the same time, than being a US ally, because you are always constrained to agree with what the big boss says unless you want to be accused of insubordination and be labelled as an enemy. Boasting of leading the world, as the United States do, has some counterparts though. It induces unsubordinates to imitate the leader, including military escalation, which is the perfect scenario for the arms industry, who plays an important role, and apparently impartial, in feeding both the leader and his enemies. The permanency and extension of this conjuncture exclusively depends on how the White House tenant is smart enough to boast this ally-enemy hoax in front of the eyes of his people. Because, my dear friend, I’m very sorry to say that it’s the Arms Industry the true tenant of the White House, not that socially engaging individual that some call the President of the United States. So, if you are an American voter, take in consideration this: “The world is not your enemy”.