The one prime reason why the US engages in constant, elective warfare is that the corrupt elites running things want to destabilize all of the rest of the world, not just declared "enemies" but even supposed allies. Blowing up the Nordstream pipelines hurt the EU more than Russia, and I am pretty sure that the international terrorists who planned it in our government knew that before they sent the team out to nix the pipelines. The corrupt people in charge think that the best way to stay on top is to make sure no other countries in the world are successful. Destabilization of "the other" is the key, in their warped minds, to world domination. Russia and China are doing very well, and that makes them US enemies #1 and #2. If India starts doing particularly well, we can expect them to be added to the list in the future. The strangest part for me is that nowhere, in anything I have ever read about US history post-WWII, suggests that anyone in the government ever thought about cooperating with the world to make it a better place for everyone. Their entire world view has revolved around destabilization and destruction. It is a mental illness.
I wonder what percentage of our population can actually be classified as "critical thinkers." Kind of a prerequisite to see through the war-mongering bullshit dished out by the National Security State and dutifully regurgitated 24/7 by the MSM. Unfortunately, after all these years and so much death and destruction needlessly inflicted upon the peoples of the world by the military-industrial complex, not much has changed since Smedley Butler first coined that brilliant phrase which explains the madness--"War is a racket."
My 7th Grade US History teacher told us while it may not be necessary to question everything, we should be prepared to question anything. "Don't trust some guy just because he's got a $200 suit and a well-modulated voice." That was something we needed to know. That was in 1966/67. I would respectfully suggest the notion of "critical thinking" went out the window when standardized lesson plans and tests - teaching only what was necessary to "get the numbers up where they belong" - walked in the door.
That was a wise 7th-grade teacher. We could use a lot more of them. And perhaps you're right. At least to some degree, 'improvements' in the educational focus may have contributed.
Still, I know lots of fellow 60's grads (and beyond) who also seemed to have lost any ability or concern for critical thinking. And I don't recall the teachers I had (at the parochial school) seeming at all concerned with that ability - most seemed content to turn out 'successful' members of society. Maybe the lack of such instruction contributed, but I suspect something more society-wide has also been at work. Our culture does seem to reinforce ego-centrism - which is the hallmark of a rather early stage of human consciousness development, and between that and culturally influenced comfort and security and status seeking, along with the overwhelming amount of marketing and propaganda, I suspect that there are in fact a number of factors in the atrophy of, or failure to develop, critical thinking.
Whatever has produced it, though, it's dangerous and saddening. Democracy and so many of the values that people seem to hold at heart can't be sustained without it.
You're probably right. It's certainly an important reason why, instead of having more of it, we have less in many aspects. We're certainly farther than ever away from any ability to have 'representative' democracy, and therefore from the possibility of having a government reflecting broad public interests. If the masses of people are no longer even able to understand what is really going on, i.e. to distinguish between fact and fiction, how could they even aspire to holding their government to account?
But this could be a really discouraging area of inquiry / discussion because it represents such a massive obstacle to survival much less to the achievement of some higher vision for America and its relationships with all the others.
It's a good question., and I don't think I'd like the answer, at least today. Critical thinking seems to have been gradually lost- perhaps deliberately eroded, externally by some; and, by the losers, simply traded off for comfort.
Around the end of year holidays last year, I joined a small group of friends at a dinner party hosted by a friend of my wife's. All 'liberal' of course. I promised myself before going that I wouldn't make any comment that could turn to politics - and certainly not the Ukraine war which was so much on my mind at the moment. I had already found such discussions in other group settings frustratingly fruitless, discovering that most within such circles had absorbed and accepted without challenge the narratives that began in earnest with Russiagate, and the dangers of a new 'Hitler' who wasn't just content to impose Trump upon us, but also intent on pushing over another stack of dominoes in his quest to become global Emperor.
Anyway, my resolve to bite my tongue was for nought as the topic of Ukraine came up anyway and someone asked my thoughts. It was clear from the start that not any had any accurate sense of what had gone on in 2014, who was behind it; or of the already 8-years long war against the Donbass that preceded and helped precipitate Russia's action; or of any other matter that might at all lead them to any different conclusion than that 'we' were defending democracy against an authoritarian, imperialist aggressor.
But the kicker for me was when one fellow said how impressed he was with the personnel in the State Department... "They seem so well-informed, bright and articulate". He'd completely disregarded my preceding remarks about the neocon's capture of said Department. So I said something about the need for something beyond mere smarts... what about Agenda? Motives? Morality / Ethics? History tells us that some smart people are also pretty depraved characters. Doesn't this matter? He basically deflected.... "Well I just trust them."
A lack of critical thinking ability? Or just a preference to be comforted by belief that allows one not to have to stand up in dissent?
Not sure it matters what percentage of the population are critical thinkers. It matters what percent of the people in power are critical thinkers but I think they get weeded out in the process of gaining power.
Those in power need not only critical thinking ability, but the heart/soul and principles to accompany it. History shows that there are plenty of fairly bright, logical people who are also sociopathic. I suspect that the arrogant neocons who run foreign policy, for example, are mostly lacking in any sense of empathy or 'moral compass'.
Thanks for writing this, Bill, and for printing Mr. Murry's comment in its entirety. I'll share this where I can, as the points are so profound and so well stated. I especially like the valid focus and deconstruction of the apt word, 'rationale'. Though it comes from the same root as 'reason', it is not the same... for any reasoning employed (at least in such cases as are the focus of the war machine) is NOT for the discovery or communication of truth; but instead in the service of deceiving those stuck with the tab.
We have so little collective power compared to the war machine and the larger machine of which it is part. Still, we have our abilities to see and the ability to tell others what we see; i.e. to shine the light where it needs to be shined and thereby to help others see. So write on, my friend(s).
I'm scared about the China war talk. It's the opposite of reason. We're already getting starved out of life, even employer sponsored health insurance is a joke now. Food prices are crazy high. The only thing left that is semi cheap are goods from China. I know it's silly but I'm thinking about socks. Is there going to come a day when I can't afford socks?
The only positive is maybe then people will revolt? When they can't afford to eat, let alone buy socks, maybe then people will protest this government?
I wonder how much calculus the rulers put into this. Probably none at this point. All they see is what is right in front of them, and that appears to be a pile of money from the MIC.
You forgot the other: We go to war to protect our "vital interests" abroad, supposedly because the "abroad" is not capable of protecting the vital interests without our help. But it is too bad that we don't often wait to be invited abroad. I guess our Military-Industrial-Congressional establishment knows what's best for abroad (and for us) so we go often without invitation. ("Our vital interests abroad" made me sick the first time I heard it.)
Apparently we have no people with expertise in ending wars (although we seem to have a lot with expertise in starting them). Trump had to work with our envoy to Afghanistan and the Taliban in an attempt (Doha agreement 2020) to end the Afghan war.
This from Defenseone.com: "Christopher Kolenda, a retired Army colonel and an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told lawmakers that future administrations should begin to plan now specifically for how to exit an Afghanistan-like conflict.
The United States, he said, should develop a doctrine for ending a war.
“The military doesn't have one. The State Department doesn't have one. State Department's got no expert body of knowledge on how to conduct wartime negotiations in which the United States is the active participant and it has not worked out well every single time,” Kolenda said. “So that expert body of knowledge is not difficult to create and something that you know could be done fairly rapidly.”"
Norman Solomon explains the three facets of the U.S. propaganda machine. How and why does the U.S. get away with engaging in so many wars across the world?
Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include "War Made Easy," "Made Love, Got War," and "War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of its Military Machine."
As long as the USA continues to re-define and expand our borders thru NATO, some other supposed ally, or trade need, we will have war to defend our 'democracy' and 'sovereignty'. The exception is for our war on immigration where our borders are clearly marked by the Rio Grande River and Canadian borders. We are now establishing borderless USA borders in outer space.
In the 60’s Jay Forester a research professor, electrical engineer, and one of the first and most well known computer scientist at MIT was credited with the development of Random-Access computer Memory or RAM which kicked the computer age into high gear. He also developed the concept of System Dynamics and wrote a book titled “World Dynamics” using all of his capabilities. This was before the World3 computer run and the book that followed called “Limits to Growth”. One of Prof Foresters famous quotes was “Anyone who thinks you can have infinite growth on a finite planet is either a madman or an economist”. He also said “ "Many industrialized nations are now growing rapidly and placing ever-greater demands on world resources. Many of those resources come from the presently underdeveloped countries. What will happen when the resource-supplying countries begin to withhold resources because they foresee the day when their own demand will require the available supplies? ... Will the developed nations stand by and let their economies decline while resources still exist in other parts of the world? Will a new era of international conflict grow out of pressures from resource shortage?" This was in 1971.
Of course the "Owners" (can't bring myself to call then elite) already understood this. In fact they fully understood that all nations, all empires are only as powerful as their ability to access and control the worlds natural resources. All empires are limited by their ability to access and control those resources using the only technologies available at the time.
All US "Wars" are about total access and control over the worlds finite natural resources and insuring that the RoW id limited in their ability to consume them in order to preserve them and keep the spice flowing.
My nominees for THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ~ that every American old enough to think for themself should start to Ask themself, their families, friends, colleagues, cohorts, and compeers ~ are as follows:
~ 1. Will there be an election in November 2024? And if there is, will there be an Inauguration and the seating of the new Congress in January 2025?
~ 2. Will the United States of America survive to celebrate its 250th Birthday on July 4, 2026? And if it does, will the American People be in any condition or mood to celebrate anything?
~ 3. What will America do if there is another 9/11? And/or: What will it do if there is another Pandemic?
~ 4. What is the difference between Human Needs and Wants, on the one hand, and Human Rights and Responsibilities, on the other?
~ 5. Given what Humans know about the Universe, the Planet, Life, and Ourselves from our Natural, Social, and Psychological Sciences; and, given what Humans can do in that Universe, to that Planet, with Life, and for Ourselves thru our Hard and Soft Technologies; WHY, then, is there still Poverty, Hunger, and Disease, Illiteracy, Injustice, and Inequity, Ecocide, Genocide, and Democide, and Insecurity, Tyranny, and War?
And this is Why these Questions need to be asked:
“Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And NO ONE CAN FIND A SAFE WAY FOR HIMSELF IF SOCIETY IS SWEEPING TOWARDS DESTRUCTION. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. No one can stand aside with unconcern: the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into THE GREAT HISTORICAL STRUGGLE, THE DECISIVE BATTLE INTO WHICH OUR EPOCH HAS PLUNGED US.” [EMPHASESE added.] ~ Ludwig von Mises in SOCIALISM: An Economic and Sociological Analysis [published in 1922]
Capitalism does not care how profit is earned, only requiring that it be earned. Every material thing is a potential source of return on investment. That there is total blindness to this being limited can be found in every statement, of which there are examples every single day, that economic growth is the answer to all problems. Butler said he was a gangster for capitalism, but every single one of us is an eager participant with hope for more, bigger and better stuff tomorrow than is possessed today. As the news of global warming becomes more frequent and ominous, anyone can see a flood of big new gas burning pickups and SUV's on the streets.
We all know the now familiar saying that insanity is trying the same thing again after it has failed to bring results, but we have gone even deeper into insanity - not even trying to do anything about a problem that is so evident. Americans are very anxious with good reason to be so, but unable to put it into words, so eating drinking and making merry are everywhere.
Capitalism has brought our empire dripping in wealth, one that can afford wars and bring profit from doing so. (Is there any way that one could say Dick Cheney lost anything as a result of the Iraq War?) Proof of this is our ability to hand out money (to Israel and Ukraine) so it can be handed right back, essentially a direct transfer from Uncle Same to the MIC. But far earlier we put over after WW2 a plan to enable us to take on an unlimited amount of debt in our money (dollars) that is to be paid back with our debt (in dollars).
We will definitely be in the history books of the future for all of the above because they are direct supports of our power. Possibly liberty and justice for all will appear in an appendix.
Meanwhile the US and it's vassal NATO subjects exposed their true selves at the July NATO Summit in Lithuania, that mini-State right on Russia's border.
Scott Ritter exposes the cynical self-serving immoral duplicity of NATO's rulers here;
'SCOTT RITTER: Requiem for NATO’s Nightmare'
The dysfunction of the Atlantic military alliance over Ukrainian membership was just the most public manifestation of the debacle that was the Vilnius summit.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky emerges as a tragic figure in the unfolding drama that is the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
He was asked to sacrifice the lives of his countrymen in order to be seen by the U.S. and NATO as worthy of joining their club. But when the sacrifice did not produce the desired result (i.e., the strategic defeat of Russia), the door to NATO, which had been left open a crack to tease Ukraine into performing its suicidal task, was slammed shut.
Despite NATO’s disingenuous machinations to maintain the optics of potential Ukrainian membership (the Ukraine-NATO Council, created during the Vilnius Summit earlier this month, stands as a prime example), everyone knows that Ukrainian membership in the trans-Atlantic alliance is a fantasy.
Ukraine is now left to pick a poison of its own choosing — accept a peace which makes permanent Russian territorial claims while forever foregoing the possibility, however distant, of NATO membership; or to continue to fight, with the likely outcome of the additional loss of territory and destruction of the Ukrainian nation and people.....................................................................................
Frederic Bastiat in the late 19th presented an economic argument for Eisenhower's warning: in peace virtually any spending is betteer than building fortifications. Like Verdun, which mainly save the allies from digging in a few kilometers of the western front!
Old school economics talked about the multiplier effect of government spending all have multipliers of less than 1, military spending has lower than most areas government spends.....
We no longer hear of multipliers about government spending because that debate is stifled!
The one prime reason why the US engages in constant, elective warfare is that the corrupt elites running things want to destabilize all of the rest of the world, not just declared "enemies" but even supposed allies. Blowing up the Nordstream pipelines hurt the EU more than Russia, and I am pretty sure that the international terrorists who planned it in our government knew that before they sent the team out to nix the pipelines. The corrupt people in charge think that the best way to stay on top is to make sure no other countries in the world are successful. Destabilization of "the other" is the key, in their warped minds, to world domination. Russia and China are doing very well, and that makes them US enemies #1 and #2. If India starts doing particularly well, we can expect them to be added to the list in the future. The strangest part for me is that nowhere, in anything I have ever read about US history post-WWII, suggests that anyone in the government ever thought about cooperating with the world to make it a better place for everyone. Their entire world view has revolved around destabilization and destruction. It is a mental illness.
Yes. Cooperation and comity are seen as "naive" and "weak." It points to rule by sociopaths.
As the saying goes, it's not enough for the U.S. to succeed. Others must fail. And we measure ourselves against those "failures."
I wonder what percentage of our population can actually be classified as "critical thinkers." Kind of a prerequisite to see through the war-mongering bullshit dished out by the National Security State and dutifully regurgitated 24/7 by the MSM. Unfortunately, after all these years and so much death and destruction needlessly inflicted upon the peoples of the world by the military-industrial complex, not much has changed since Smedley Butler first coined that brilliant phrase which explains the madness--"War is a racket."
Maybe we can prosecute the war pigs for racketeering and fraud.
Well, they certainly should be, not to mention war crimes!
My 7th Grade US History teacher told us while it may not be necessary to question everything, we should be prepared to question anything. "Don't trust some guy just because he's got a $200 suit and a well-modulated voice." That was something we needed to know. That was in 1966/67. I would respectfully suggest the notion of "critical thinking" went out the window when standardized lesson plans and tests - teaching only what was necessary to "get the numbers up where they belong" - walked in the door.
That was a wise 7th-grade teacher. We could use a lot more of them. And perhaps you're right. At least to some degree, 'improvements' in the educational focus may have contributed.
Still, I know lots of fellow 60's grads (and beyond) who also seemed to have lost any ability or concern for critical thinking. And I don't recall the teachers I had (at the parochial school) seeming at all concerned with that ability - most seemed content to turn out 'successful' members of society. Maybe the lack of such instruction contributed, but I suspect something more society-wide has also been at work. Our culture does seem to reinforce ego-centrism - which is the hallmark of a rather early stage of human consciousness development, and between that and culturally influenced comfort and security and status seeking, along with the overwhelming amount of marketing and propaganda, I suspect that there are in fact a number of factors in the atrophy of, or failure to develop, critical thinking.
Whatever has produced it, though, it's dangerous and saddening. Democracy and so many of the values that people seem to hold at heart can't be sustained without it.
I suppose that's a key reason why we don't have democracy in America.
You're probably right. It's certainly an important reason why, instead of having more of it, we have less in many aspects. We're certainly farther than ever away from any ability to have 'representative' democracy, and therefore from the possibility of having a government reflecting broad public interests. If the masses of people are no longer even able to understand what is really going on, i.e. to distinguish between fact and fiction, how could they even aspire to holding their government to account?
But this could be a really discouraging area of inquiry / discussion because it represents such a massive obstacle to survival much less to the achievement of some higher vision for America and its relationships with all the others.
It's a good question., and I don't think I'd like the answer, at least today. Critical thinking seems to have been gradually lost- perhaps deliberately eroded, externally by some; and, by the losers, simply traded off for comfort.
Around the end of year holidays last year, I joined a small group of friends at a dinner party hosted by a friend of my wife's. All 'liberal' of course. I promised myself before going that I wouldn't make any comment that could turn to politics - and certainly not the Ukraine war which was so much on my mind at the moment. I had already found such discussions in other group settings frustratingly fruitless, discovering that most within such circles had absorbed and accepted without challenge the narratives that began in earnest with Russiagate, and the dangers of a new 'Hitler' who wasn't just content to impose Trump upon us, but also intent on pushing over another stack of dominoes in his quest to become global Emperor.
Anyway, my resolve to bite my tongue was for nought as the topic of Ukraine came up anyway and someone asked my thoughts. It was clear from the start that not any had any accurate sense of what had gone on in 2014, who was behind it; or of the already 8-years long war against the Donbass that preceded and helped precipitate Russia's action; or of any other matter that might at all lead them to any different conclusion than that 'we' were defending democracy against an authoritarian, imperialist aggressor.
But the kicker for me was when one fellow said how impressed he was with the personnel in the State Department... "They seem so well-informed, bright and articulate". He'd completely disregarded my preceding remarks about the neocon's capture of said Department. So I said something about the need for something beyond mere smarts... what about Agenda? Motives? Morality / Ethics? History tells us that some smart people are also pretty depraved characters. Doesn't this matter? He basically deflected.... "Well I just trust them."
A lack of critical thinking ability? Or just a preference to be comforted by belief that allows one not to have to stand up in dissent?
We are conditioned to defer to the "experts," the "best and brightest," out of a sense of misplaced loyalty/patriotism.
Look where that deference has got us!
Not sure it matters what percentage of the population are critical thinkers. It matters what percent of the people in power are critical thinkers but I think they get weeded out in the process of gaining power.
Yes. What those in power want is uncritical believers.
Those in power need not only critical thinking ability, but the heart/soul and principles to accompany it. History shows that there are plenty of fairly bright, logical people who are also sociopathic. I suspect that the arrogant neocons who run foreign policy, for example, are mostly lacking in any sense of empathy or 'moral compass'.
Thanks for writing this, Bill, and for printing Mr. Murry's comment in its entirety. I'll share this where I can, as the points are so profound and so well stated. I especially like the valid focus and deconstruction of the apt word, 'rationale'. Though it comes from the same root as 'reason', it is not the same... for any reasoning employed (at least in such cases as are the focus of the war machine) is NOT for the discovery or communication of truth; but instead in the service of deceiving those stuck with the tab.
We have so little collective power compared to the war machine and the larger machine of which it is part. Still, we have our abilities to see and the ability to tell others what we see; i.e. to shine the light where it needs to be shined and thereby to help others see. So write on, my friend(s).
I'm scared about the China war talk. It's the opposite of reason. We're already getting starved out of life, even employer sponsored health insurance is a joke now. Food prices are crazy high. The only thing left that is semi cheap are goods from China. I know it's silly but I'm thinking about socks. Is there going to come a day when I can't afford socks?
The only positive is maybe then people will revolt? When they can't afford to eat, let alone buy socks, maybe then people will protest this government?
I wonder how much calculus the rulers put into this. Probably none at this point. All they see is what is right in front of them, and that appears to be a pile of money from the MIC.
It may very well come to this when the people start protesting!
https://rayjc.com/2019/10/17/leaked-us-military-manual-for-policing-homeland-internment-camps-for-political-dissidents/
You forgot the other: We go to war to protect our "vital interests" abroad, supposedly because the "abroad" is not capable of protecting the vital interests without our help. But it is too bad that we don't often wait to be invited abroad. I guess our Military-Industrial-Congressional establishment knows what's best for abroad (and for us) so we go often without invitation. ("Our vital interests abroad" made me sick the first time I heard it.)
Yes. Which "vital interests" are those, and why are they "vital" to me?
Apparently we have no people with expertise in ending wars (although we seem to have a lot with expertise in starting them). Trump had to work with our envoy to Afghanistan and the Taliban in an attempt (Doha agreement 2020) to end the Afghan war.
This from Defenseone.com: "Christopher Kolenda, a retired Army colonel and an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told lawmakers that future administrations should begin to plan now specifically for how to exit an Afghanistan-like conflict.
The United States, he said, should develop a doctrine for ending a war.
“The military doesn't have one. The State Department doesn't have one. State Department's got no expert body of knowledge on how to conduct wartime negotiations in which the United States is the active participant and it has not worked out well every single time,” Kolenda said. “So that expert body of knowledge is not difficult to create and something that you know could be done fairly rapidly.”"
Norman Solomon explains the three facets of the U.S. propaganda machine. How and why does the U.S. get away with engaging in so many wars across the world?
Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include "War Made Easy," "Made Love, Got War," and "War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of its Military Machine."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whRDKAzv3Qs
As long as the USA continues to re-define and expand our borders thru NATO, some other supposed ally, or trade need, we will have war to defend our 'democracy' and 'sovereignty'. The exception is for our war on immigration where our borders are clearly marked by the Rio Grande River and Canadian borders. We are now establishing borderless USA borders in outer space.
In the 60’s Jay Forester a research professor, electrical engineer, and one of the first and most well known computer scientist at MIT was credited with the development of Random-Access computer Memory or RAM which kicked the computer age into high gear. He also developed the concept of System Dynamics and wrote a book titled “World Dynamics” using all of his capabilities. This was before the World3 computer run and the book that followed called “Limits to Growth”. One of Prof Foresters famous quotes was “Anyone who thinks you can have infinite growth on a finite planet is either a madman or an economist”. He also said “ "Many industrialized nations are now growing rapidly and placing ever-greater demands on world resources. Many of those resources come from the presently underdeveloped countries. What will happen when the resource-supplying countries begin to withhold resources because they foresee the day when their own demand will require the available supplies? ... Will the developed nations stand by and let their economies decline while resources still exist in other parts of the world? Will a new era of international conflict grow out of pressures from resource shortage?" This was in 1971.
Of course the "Owners" (can't bring myself to call then elite) already understood this. In fact they fully understood that all nations, all empires are only as powerful as their ability to access and control the worlds natural resources. All empires are limited by their ability to access and control those resources using the only technologies available at the time.
All US "Wars" are about total access and control over the worlds finite natural resources and insuring that the RoW id limited in their ability to consume them in order to preserve them and keep the spice flowing.
My nominees for THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ~ that every American old enough to think for themself should start to Ask themself, their families, friends, colleagues, cohorts, and compeers ~ are as follows:
~ 1. Will there be an election in November 2024? And if there is, will there be an Inauguration and the seating of the new Congress in January 2025?
~ 2. Will the United States of America survive to celebrate its 250th Birthday on July 4, 2026? And if it does, will the American People be in any condition or mood to celebrate anything?
~ 3. What will America do if there is another 9/11? And/or: What will it do if there is another Pandemic?
~ 4. What is the difference between Human Needs and Wants, on the one hand, and Human Rights and Responsibilities, on the other?
~ 5. Given what Humans know about the Universe, the Planet, Life, and Ourselves from our Natural, Social, and Psychological Sciences; and, given what Humans can do in that Universe, to that Planet, with Life, and for Ourselves thru our Hard and Soft Technologies; WHY, then, is there still Poverty, Hunger, and Disease, Illiteracy, Injustice, and Inequity, Ecocide, Genocide, and Democide, and Insecurity, Tyranny, and War?
And this is Why these Questions need to be asked:
“Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And NO ONE CAN FIND A SAFE WAY FOR HIMSELF IF SOCIETY IS SWEEPING TOWARDS DESTRUCTION. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. No one can stand aside with unconcern: the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into THE GREAT HISTORICAL STRUGGLE, THE DECISIVE BATTLE INTO WHICH OUR EPOCH HAS PLUNGED US.” [EMPHASESE added.] ~ Ludwig von Mises in SOCIALISM: An Economic and Sociological Analysis [published in 1922]
Note: For a detailed analysis of and commentary on Mises’ “declaration of responsibility” by Jeffrey Tucker of the American Institute for Economic Research, go to: https://www.aier.org/article/ludwig-von-mises-on-intellectual-obligation-in-times-of-crisis/ .
I can only echo Roger Hoffmann: “Thanks for writing this, Bill, and for printing Mr. Murry's comment in its entirety.”
"Warfare Welfare and Make-work Militarism": brilliant!
Capitalism does not care how profit is earned, only requiring that it be earned. Every material thing is a potential source of return on investment. That there is total blindness to this being limited can be found in every statement, of which there are examples every single day, that economic growth is the answer to all problems. Butler said he was a gangster for capitalism, but every single one of us is an eager participant with hope for more, bigger and better stuff tomorrow than is possessed today. As the news of global warming becomes more frequent and ominous, anyone can see a flood of big new gas burning pickups and SUV's on the streets.
We all know the now familiar saying that insanity is trying the same thing again after it has failed to bring results, but we have gone even deeper into insanity - not even trying to do anything about a problem that is so evident. Americans are very anxious with good reason to be so, but unable to put it into words, so eating drinking and making merry are everywhere.
Capitalism has brought our empire dripping in wealth, one that can afford wars and bring profit from doing so. (Is there any way that one could say Dick Cheney lost anything as a result of the Iraq War?) Proof of this is our ability to hand out money (to Israel and Ukraine) so it can be handed right back, essentially a direct transfer from Uncle Same to the MIC. But far earlier we put over after WW2 a plan to enable us to take on an unlimited amount of debt in our money (dollars) that is to be paid back with our debt (in dollars).
We will definitely be in the history books of the future for all of the above because they are direct supports of our power. Possibly liberty and justice for all will appear in an appendix.
"War is a racket" - Gen. Smedley Butler. It always has been thus.
Meanwhile the US and it's vassal NATO subjects exposed their true selves at the July NATO Summit in Lithuania, that mini-State right on Russia's border.
Scott Ritter exposes the cynical self-serving immoral duplicity of NATO's rulers here;
'SCOTT RITTER: Requiem for NATO’s Nightmare'
The dysfunction of the Atlantic military alliance over Ukrainian membership was just the most public manifestation of the debacle that was the Vilnius summit.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky emerges as a tragic figure in the unfolding drama that is the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
He was asked to sacrifice the lives of his countrymen in order to be seen by the U.S. and NATO as worthy of joining their club. But when the sacrifice did not produce the desired result (i.e., the strategic defeat of Russia), the door to NATO, which had been left open a crack to tease Ukraine into performing its suicidal task, was slammed shut.
Despite NATO’s disingenuous machinations to maintain the optics of potential Ukrainian membership (the Ukraine-NATO Council, created during the Vilnius Summit earlier this month, stands as a prime example), everyone knows that Ukrainian membership in the trans-Atlantic alliance is a fantasy.
Ukraine is now left to pick a poison of its own choosing — accept a peace which makes permanent Russian territorial claims while forever foregoing the possibility, however distant, of NATO membership; or to continue to fight, with the likely outcome of the additional loss of territory and destruction of the Ukrainian nation and people.....................................................................................
https://consortiumnews.com/2023/07/28/scott-ritter-requiem-for-natos-nightmare/
Sun Tzu said: "no prince prospers from long war".
Frederic Bastiat in the late 19th presented an economic argument for Eisenhower's warning: in peace virtually any spending is betteer than building fortifications. Like Verdun, which mainly save the allies from digging in a few kilometers of the western front!
Old school economics talked about the multiplier effect of government spending all have multipliers of less than 1, military spending has lower than most areas government spends.....
We no longer hear of multipliers about government spending because that debate is stifled!
Sun Tzu in this case is wrong. Our government has lots of princes who prosper from long wars.