It is interesting that what you have outlined, where virtually all aspects of our society are controlled by a relatively small group of sociopaths (including all news and entertainment), basically defines what many now call The Blob. It is too big, too all encompassing and too out of control to even be limited to MICIMATT. As you say, it now includes all aspects of our modern capitalist/militarist system. So of course it is going to be difficult for the powerless people enmeshed in The Blob's sphere of influence to have any effect on what The Blob does, or does not do. The problem boils down to a simple question, how does the public have any way whatsoever of changing the system that they have been born into? Then add on top of this the fact that The Blob divides people based on their team preferences (Red vs. Blue), you have a recipe for total gridlock in any pushback. Until the Red and Blue Team voters realize they are being played, and join forces, things will only get worse.

Expand full comment

A good reminder that those of us in favor of peace need to set aside differences in order to more effectively work for that peace. As an anarcho-capitalist I want a peace dividend to be retuned to those who created the wealth in the first place. A Democratic Socialist will certainly have different ideas. However, this discussion is theoretical only until we actually generate said peace dividend.

Let us set aside these differences, which do not matter presently, and work toward diminishing the power of the empire. I am certainly willing to work with anyone, of any ideological stripe who genuinely wishes to end US imperial violence. Peace now!

Expand full comment

I certainly agree with all you say here, Bill, but we aren't going to get anywhere changing the MICIMATT situation until we can get a third party. I believe that a majority of Americans are thoroughly fed up with both the Republican party and the Democratic party. I know I am, and I have no intention of voting for either Biden or Trump or De Santis or whoever. Neither party is going to reduce the budget we offer the Pentagon. Did you see the article by Nader and the chart? We spend 10 times more on military than Russia, three times more than China and more than virtually all the rest of the nations put together.

We have a debt ceiling argument going on but I note that neither party is suggesting lowering the amount the military gets and we have no politicians willing to fight for that, that I can see - certainly no one in the current Democratic administration, and of course no one in the GOP either. I wonder if you could suggest a method to put together another party? One that would appeal to the majority of people in this country that want to improve our infrastructure, our education, our health etc. and have no interest in pursuing the insane wars our two parties are offering

Expand full comment

Our government is so out of touch with the people they constitutionally are suppose to represent. How? They and the think tanks surrounding our capitol would rather spend trillions defending our myopic definition of democracy around a world then defending democracy here in the USA. We the people want universal health care. We want freedom of expression (but not behind a gun, thank you). We want good paying jobs, good schools,universities and trade centers to educate our citizens, our children at a cost affordable to all. We want to end our endless wars. We want a tax system that takes from the wealthy and distributes that excessive wealth to needed social programs. What the hell happened to our government where spending trillions on killing, maiming and starving and policing/sanctioning citizens/nations around the world takes president over our rights here in America. Her our politicians at state and federal levels are supresses democracy.


by legislating:

-voting suppression rights -woman rights

- LGBT rights

-education rights (banning of books) denying the unwealthy the right to higher efucation.

-freedom of expression rights

- lastly denying the individual the right for his/her vote to have equal weight in presidential elections.

Get mad citizens. Get involved. We need to get back to basic rights of liberty, egality, fraternity or else present right leaning policies will bring us all down to a Hitlerian fascist state.


*Not endless wars*

Expand full comment

We the people need to take PEACE to the streets of our communities.

Expand full comment

You comment that the MICC has won the struggle for societal dominance, Bill. In the sense that the military gets the biggest, unquestioned share of discretionary spending, that's true. I'd submit, though, that corporations, en masse, totally control society, and military-oriented concerns are "only" a part of that bloc.

Your comment set me to wondering---and I truly don't know the answer here, as my historical studies have mostly focused on Europe---has the U.S. always been so military minded? Of course, during the Civil War (not necessarily the Revolution), both World Wars, and possibly Vietnam, the military was a major societal focus. Except for Vietnam, there was a quite natural us-vs.-them mindset, whoever "them" was. U.S citizens at those times looked to the military as literal protectors, and so valued the institution immensely.

But what about at other times? Say, the 1820s through 1850s? Were there lots of military parades? Was a career in the service held up as an absolute, patriotic good (Indian Wars and skirmishes with Mexico aside)? Or the 1920s and '30s?

Where I'm going with this is that it seems to me that most Western countries, including the U.S.,

have always had a martial bent. "Playing soldier" was ubiquitous, I think, and the military has always held civilians in thrall---think July 4th parades.

The difference now is that technology has developed over the past one hundred years. Now, that martial spirit has been weaponized, so to speak, by interested parties (read: Pentagon and profiteers), to become even more pervasive. And in the process, those parties have gotten a lock on government coffers. In sum, my not-well-educated guess is that it's a difference in degree, not kind. Thoughts?

Expand full comment