As a Christian, therefore a pacifist, I appreciate being directed to the story of Elihu Burritt. I had not heard of him before. I could bang on about Christians being mostly AWOL from any opposition to current US war policy, but hey its only Monday.
Instead I will direct folks to a documentary from 2022, called "Theaters of War". It details all the ways the US military controls the production of war movies, right down to script changes, in exchange for the use of billion dollar military toys. Unless I know a film has not made such a Faustian bargain, I will not watch it. The documentary does point out the few heroes who refused the military's offer, my favorites being "WarGames" and "The Day After". Peace.
Well, we all know what happened to Jesus, even in "The Last Temptation of Christ" where he had an out, but didn't take it. Nothing heroic there. No video game tie-ins. And no one wants to emulate being crucified. Peace simply doesn't pay.
I applaud this idea of celebrating the peacemaker through cinema. Sadly, the American film industry exists as an arm of the state, helping to coax its citizenry into believing what it needs them to believe- and sadly the idea of peace doesn’t seem to be something the state is in the business of pushing.
Interesting that you are so interested in this. I wonder why? You seem like my friends who were horrified that I had this opinion. That is interesting as well. Is there some reason why I should stop what I am doing to placate you by digging up news items? Would the western "news" even admit this? No, of course not. I read lots of news every day, and the number of stories depicting NK as a major threat that must be dealt with has almost disappeared from the western press compared to how constant it had been. One press release from the WH is pretty slim pickings. I get it, you don't like the idea that developing nukes would actually reduce the constant threat directed at a country from the US. But then ask yourself why the US is so incredibly focused on making sure other countries do not develop them.? Because they are excellent deterrents against aggression.
I think the US doesn't "need" NK as a major threat -- we've now got Russia and China. Plus the NK nuclear capability, whatever it is, is an insurance policy for Kim so he won't end up like Gaddafi. It seems to be working.
That was my exact point Bill. Having nukes makes smaller countries much less likely to get threatened. For example, it doesn't seem to matter what Pakistan does (including hiding Bin Laden). Now NK seems much more secure to me. I expect the same would happen with Iran, which is why Israel is so desperate to stop them. I agree that the paranoid delusions of the US have shifted to Russia and China, but as that turns out to cause 100 times more negative blowback than result, that will fade too. At that point The Blob may be forced to switch back to good ol' "terrorism" as the boogeyman. Or maybe Venezuela or Granada.
Caitlin Johnstone begins her latest piece THE US IS WAR as follows:
“The US won WW2 and then immediately plunged into the Cold War. The US won the Cold War and then immediately set to work destroying the Middle East. The US destroyed the Middle East and then immediately started another cold war in preparation for another world war. The US is war.
“A normal country wages war with the goal of getting back to peacetime. The US wages war with the goal of getting to the next war.”
And notes: “You cannot understand the geopolitics and major conflicts of the 2020s without understanding that the US empire has been actively amassing military threats in the immediate surroundings of its top two rivals that it would never tolerate anyone else amassing near the US.”
And then asks: “How can anyone still support the idea of progressive reform in the Democratic Party after watching AOC transform into Nancy Pelosi before their very eyes by announcing her support of Biden for re-election in 2024?”
After WWII, the troops almost demobilized themselves. Ordinary Americans didn't want more war. But the government did, and communism was the bogeyman for the beginning of a huge "national security" state and a condition of more or less permanent war.
Hence Ike's warnings in 1953 and 1961, and MLK's speech on April 4, 1967. All that's changed is that the MICC grows ever larger and stronger.
One of the primary reasons there has never been a blockbuster movie about American “Peacemakers,” Bill, is because there has never been an American “Peacemaker” [or group of “Peacemakers”] who has successfully either first prevented, and/or failing that, then successfully stopped any War that America has ever been involved in.
All those mega-hits about War and War Heroes are about people who have been “Heroes” and “Winners” at whatever American War [real or imagined] that this nation has been involved in over the 229 years since its birth, 247 years ago this past July 4.
And if there’s one thing that won’t sell War movie tickets, it’s stories about Americans who were and are not “Winners.”
You concluded Your 2013 piece with the question: “For if we truly are a peace-loving people, why do we fail to honor our most accomplished advocates for peace?” And the simplest, most direct, and bluntest answer to Your question is because Americans are not now ~ nor have they ever been ~ that “peace-loving people.”
It's very odd that for a lot of Americans, the thought of another country developing nuclear weapons is more than sufficient cause for bombing them. I used to tell friends I couldn't wait until North Korea got nukes, not because it would cause war, but because it would prevent it. Now you hear a lot less bellicose talk about North Korea. They basically got their "get out of the US crosshairs" card. If Iran ever did develop nukes, it would reduce tensions in the ME by forcing Israel to back off.
With all due respect, John: How many Nukes does Kim Jong Un actually, really have at his disposal? And more importantly, what sort of delivery system of those Nukes does he have that poses any actual, real Threat to anyplace within the United States? Other than one or two Maybe reaching Alaska or the extreme Pacific Northwes?
The reason there is "less bellicose talk about NK" and that it is [for the moment at least] "out of those crosshairs," is because the American government and its media have bigger, more credible fish to fry and jam down the American Peoples' throat: Ie, the Russkies and The Chinks with all Their Nukes, and [we are told] perfectly operational and ready delivery systems that could be a Threat to just about Everyplace in America.
And if You honestly and sincerely believe that Iran's developing or acquiring Nukes of its own would cause "Israel to back off," You do not understand what Israel's role in The American Empire is, has always been, and will continue to be until that Empire falls.
You may be right, but if you were paying attention at the time, the rhetoric dropped 95% right after they started doing tests. Why didn't the anti-NK rhetoric increase then as you would have expected? I think the obvious answer is it was too late to do the nuke development boogeyman talk and that is why they moved on to other targets. Think about it, before they had nukes we were hearing about them attacking the west coast, then all of a sudden, when they actually had nukes, that talk all ended.
So exactly when during those 11 years did the rhetoric drop “95% right after they started doing tests”? Can You cite any specific examples by anybody in the US government or its media dropping their rhetoric?
And according to an April 2023 report by the Congressional Research Service: “The Biden Administration’s 2022 Nuclear Posture Review said, ‘Any nuclear attack by North Korea against the United States or its Allies and partners is unacceptable and will result in the end of that regime.’” [ https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/IF10472.pdf ]
Does that qualify as an example of “dropped rhetoric”?
It is interesting that you are so interested in this. I was hearing about NK nuking CA for a long time as they were working to develop them. Now I hear nothing about that. Maybe you still are, but a WH press release is not even a news story, it is pure BS. Also, expecting the western press to discuss the drop in anti-NK rhetoric, when it was them who pushed it for years, is just silly. I don't need to hear things from the western, corporate-owned-news to be able to put pieces together. Developing nukes is an excellent deterrent to US/NATO aggression. If it was a risk to do so, we would have already attacked NK.
Heh. That’s interesting, John, that You dismiss the Biden Administration’s 2022 Nuclear Posture Review as merely “a WH press release.”
And i’m always interested in unsourced assertations. You may have noticed that i periodically ask BV posters for specifically where they are getting their obviously-taken-from-the-Net information from.
"Your silence betrays you." Only six comments in seven hours (and counting). Evidently, the concept of peace is not popular among the hardcore Bracing Views readers. No opportunity for link after link to one "truth teller" or other, no irrefutable statistics, nothing to be said about the good intentions of China or Russia despite US provocations, nothin' 'bout nothin' 'bout peace. The Bracing Views comments section as a microcosm of the Cosmos.
That depends entirely on who the murderer and the murdered is, and who is making the call as to whether or not it is a "sin." And their definition of "sin."
To those in positions to make Wars happen: Murder when carried out by governments [or organized religious armies] is certainly no sin.
usa is run by the most profitable pacifists who believe in peace through stability, and that stability can come only when there are no countries that create need for usa to destabilize them through overwhelming technology war described in spec sheets, with huge price tags, massive delays, shoddy logistics tails… never tested in real world.
So let me ask You a question, Ray: What actual "peace" did Jesus actually work for and actually bring about and make happen during his lifetime?
What did he actually, really do in the Real World of 2000 years ago AGAINST the biggest force for War, Slavery, and Tyranny at that time [the Roman Empire} that actually, really changed or accomplished anything?
After his ministry, were the People of Palestine/Israel any closer to Peace [let alone Justice or Liberty] than they were when he started his preaching?
Or did all that he actually do was to ultimately provide a basis and foundation for Christianity to become and be one of the biggest champions, fomenters, and ultimate causes of War, "Just" Conquest, and Tyranny in all of Human History?
When has any faction of mainstream Christianity ~ particularly when aligned with the dictatorial powers of Government and The State ~ ever brought into, espoused, and actually functioned "not by military force or physical strength," but by Zerubbabel's declaration about "spirit"?
Or actually committed itself and then followed thru on making Justice and Peace actually happen in the Real World? Before, that is, the so-called "End Times" when it will be too late for everybody but those "Chosen Ones" who have bought into The System?
Sorry for the delay responding, Ray: Been tied up with Boat Work.
First of all, and before proceeding any further, let me ask You a couple of questions:
~ 1. Do You ~ without any doubt or question whatsoever ~ believe and think that this Universe was created 6000 or so years ago?
~ 2. What is the basis for and source of that belief and thought besides Genesis?
Second of all: Your response did not answer my original Question about what Jesus actually DID against the Roman Empire that actually accomplished Any good for Anybody living under Roman Tyranny at that time.
Good morning my friend Ray. I hope you are doing well today.
I'm glad to hear you are doing well in your 80th year. That's great.
Me, not so much - approaching 80, I am struggling with cancer. It sucks.
I always enjoy reading your knowledgeable and excellent posts on geo-politics in this forum and admire your strenuous efforts as a peace activist.
But as you know, I believe the story of Jesus raising from the dead is a myth.
And the idea of Substitutionary atonement, also called vicarious atonement, the central concept within Western Christian theology which asserts that Jesus died "for us" as bogus. Coming from irrational thinking of superstitious, ignorant ancient men.
Even if there is a God, which I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to believe, how is it just to punish an innocent person, let alone your own son, for the sins of others. It does not make sense.
And two other questions: If Jesus knew he was a God, and going to have an eternal life, surely his crucifixion, albeit painful and cruel, was just a bad weekend for him. What did he have to worry about eh?
As for God, the Bible and war: Wars in the bible begin in the first book, Genesis, and God’s involvement in them is personal and direct. The Israelites fought in accordance to God’s commands in the bible stories, and their God assisted them in the destruction of cities and peoples, including the Amalekites (Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), the Canaanites (Numbers) and the Amorites (Numbers, Deuteronomy). That the Bible is anti-war always seems preposterous to this old man.
Respectfully, Dennis. Take care Ray. "Its all Good" and "No worries" as we say down under.
As a Christian, therefore a pacifist, I appreciate being directed to the story of Elihu Burritt. I had not heard of him before. I could bang on about Christians being mostly AWOL from any opposition to current US war policy, but hey its only Monday.
Instead I will direct folks to a documentary from 2022, called "Theaters of War". It details all the ways the US military controls the production of war movies, right down to script changes, in exchange for the use of billion dollar military toys. Unless I know a film has not made such a Faustian bargain, I will not watch it. The documentary does point out the few heroes who refused the military's offer, my favorites being "WarGames" and "The Day After". Peace.
Bill, I agree with you 100%, every time, although I don't always add my voice to your chorus.
I don't know how you keep it up, so often. But as long as you can, please do! You're the top dove in my dovecote. Coo, coo, coo!
I think writing is one way I maintain my sanity, Chris.
Well, we all know what happened to Jesus, even in "The Last Temptation of Christ" where he had an out, but didn't take it. Nothing heroic there. No video game tie-ins. And no one wants to emulate being crucified. Peace simply doesn't pay.
I applaud this idea of celebrating the peacemaker through cinema. Sadly, the American film industry exists as an arm of the state, helping to coax its citizenry into believing what it needs them to believe- and sadly the idea of peace doesn’t seem to be something the state is in the business of pushing.
Interesting that you are so interested in this. I wonder why? You seem like my friends who were horrified that I had this opinion. That is interesting as well. Is there some reason why I should stop what I am doing to placate you by digging up news items? Would the western "news" even admit this? No, of course not. I read lots of news every day, and the number of stories depicting NK as a major threat that must be dealt with has almost disappeared from the western press compared to how constant it had been. One press release from the WH is pretty slim pickings. I get it, you don't like the idea that developing nukes would actually reduce the constant threat directed at a country from the US. But then ask yourself why the US is so incredibly focused on making sure other countries do not develop them.? Because they are excellent deterrents against aggression.
I think the US doesn't "need" NK as a major threat -- we've now got Russia and China. Plus the NK nuclear capability, whatever it is, is an insurance policy for Kim so he won't end up like Gaddafi. It seems to be working.
That was my exact point Bill. Having nukes makes smaller countries much less likely to get threatened. For example, it doesn't seem to matter what Pakistan does (including hiding Bin Laden). Now NK seems much more secure to me. I expect the same would happen with Iran, which is why Israel is so desperate to stop them. I agree that the paranoid delusions of the US have shifted to Russia and China, but as that turns out to cause 100 times more negative blowback than result, that will fade too. At that point The Blob may be forced to switch back to good ol' "terrorism" as the boogeyman. Or maybe Venezuela or Granada.
Caitlin Johnstone begins her latest piece THE US IS WAR as follows:
“The US won WW2 and then immediately plunged into the Cold War. The US won the Cold War and then immediately set to work destroying the Middle East. The US destroyed the Middle East and then immediately started another cold war in preparation for another world war. The US is war.
“A normal country wages war with the goal of getting back to peacetime. The US wages war with the goal of getting to the next war.”
And notes: “You cannot understand the geopolitics and major conflicts of the 2020s without understanding that the US empire has been actively amassing military threats in the immediate surroundings of its top two rivals that it would never tolerate anyone else amassing near the US.”
And then asks: “How can anyone still support the idea of progressive reform in the Democratic Party after watching AOC transform into Nancy Pelosi before their very eyes by announcing her support of Biden for re-election in 2024?”
Full article at https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/the-us-is-war-notes-from-the-edge .
How true about AOC. Total sellout.
After WWII, the troops almost demobilized themselves. Ordinary Americans didn't want more war. But the government did, and communism was the bogeyman for the beginning of a huge "national security" state and a condition of more or less permanent war.
Hence Ike's warnings in 1953 and 1961, and MLK's speech on April 4, 1967. All that's changed is that the MICC grows ever larger and stronger.
One of the primary reasons there has never been a blockbuster movie about American “Peacemakers,” Bill, is because there has never been an American “Peacemaker” [or group of “Peacemakers”] who has successfully either first prevented, and/or failing that, then successfully stopped any War that America has ever been involved in.
All those mega-hits about War and War Heroes are about people who have been “Heroes” and “Winners” at whatever American War [real or imagined] that this nation has been involved in over the 229 years since its birth, 247 years ago this past July 4.
And if there’s one thing that won’t sell War movie tickets, it’s stories about Americans who were and are not “Winners.”
You concluded Your 2013 piece with the question: “For if we truly are a peace-loving people, why do we fail to honor our most accomplished advocates for peace?” And the simplest, most direct, and bluntest answer to Your question is because Americans are not now ~ nor have they ever been ~ that “peace-loving people.”
It's very odd that for a lot of Americans, the thought of another country developing nuclear weapons is more than sufficient cause for bombing them. I used to tell friends I couldn't wait until North Korea got nukes, not because it would cause war, but because it would prevent it. Now you hear a lot less bellicose talk about North Korea. They basically got their "get out of the US crosshairs" card. If Iran ever did develop nukes, it would reduce tensions in the ME by forcing Israel to back off.
With all due respect, John: How many Nukes does Kim Jong Un actually, really have at his disposal? And more importantly, what sort of delivery system of those Nukes does he have that poses any actual, real Threat to anyplace within the United States? Other than one or two Maybe reaching Alaska or the extreme Pacific Northwes?
The reason there is "less bellicose talk about NK" and that it is [for the moment at least] "out of those crosshairs," is because the American government and its media have bigger, more credible fish to fry and jam down the American Peoples' throat: Ie, the Russkies and The Chinks with all Their Nukes, and [we are told] perfectly operational and ready delivery systems that could be a Threat to just about Everyplace in America.
And if You honestly and sincerely believe that Iran's developing or acquiring Nukes of its own would cause "Israel to back off," You do not understand what Israel's role in The American Empire is, has always been, and will continue to be until that Empire falls.
You may be right, but if you were paying attention at the time, the rhetoric dropped 95% right after they started doing tests. Why didn't the anti-NK rhetoric increase then as you would have expected? I think the obvious answer is it was too late to do the nuke development boogeyman talk and that is why they moved on to other targets. Think about it, before they had nukes we were hearing about them attacking the west coast, then all of a sudden, when they actually had nukes, that talk all ended.
John: According to Wikipedia: “North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests, in 2006, 2009, 2013, twice in 2016, and in 2017.”
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea ].
So exactly when during those 11 years did the rhetoric drop “95% right after they started doing tests”? Can You cite any specific examples by anybody in the US government or its media dropping their rhetoric?
And according to an April 2023 report by the Congressional Research Service: “The Biden Administration’s 2022 Nuclear Posture Review said, ‘Any nuclear attack by North Korea against the United States or its Allies and partners is unacceptable and will result in the end of that regime.’” [ https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/IF10472.pdf ]
Does that qualify as an example of “dropped rhetoric”?
It is interesting that you are so interested in this. I was hearing about NK nuking CA for a long time as they were working to develop them. Now I hear nothing about that. Maybe you still are, but a WH press release is not even a news story, it is pure BS. Also, expecting the western press to discuss the drop in anti-NK rhetoric, when it was them who pushed it for years, is just silly. I don't need to hear things from the western, corporate-owned-news to be able to put pieces together. Developing nukes is an excellent deterrent to US/NATO aggression. If it was a risk to do so, we would have already attacked NK.
Heh. That’s interesting, John, that You dismiss the Biden Administration’s 2022 Nuclear Posture Review as merely “a WH press release.”
And i’m always interested in unsourced assertations. You may have noticed that i periodically ask BV posters for specifically where they are getting their obviously-taken-from-the-Net information from.
"Your silence betrays you." Only six comments in seven hours (and counting). Evidently, the concept of peace is not popular among the hardcore Bracing Views readers. No opportunity for link after link to one "truth teller" or other, no irrefutable statistics, nothing to be said about the good intentions of China or Russia despite US provocations, nothin' 'bout nothin' 'bout peace. The Bracing Views comments section as a microcosm of the Cosmos.
And so, wdt: Where are Your links after links to "truth tellers, "irrefutable statistics," and "bout peace"? Got any to offer?
Isn't murder a sin?
That depends entirely on who the murderer and the murdered is, and who is making the call as to whether or not it is a "sin." And their definition of "sin."
To those in positions to make Wars happen: Murder when carried out by governments [or organized religious armies] is certainly no sin.
usa is run by the most profitable pacifists who believe in peace through stability, and that stability can come only when there are no countries that create need for usa to destabilize them through overwhelming technology war described in spec sheets, with huge price tags, massive delays, shoddy logistics tails… never tested in real world.
So let me ask You a question, Ray: What actual "peace" did Jesus actually work for and actually bring about and make happen during his lifetime?
What did he actually, really do in the Real World of 2000 years ago AGAINST the biggest force for War, Slavery, and Tyranny at that time [the Roman Empire} that actually, really changed or accomplished anything?
After his ministry, were the People of Palestine/Israel any closer to Peace [let alone Justice or Liberty] than they were when he started his preaching?
Or did all that he actually do was to ultimately provide a basis and foundation for Christianity to become and be one of the biggest champions, fomenters, and ultimate causes of War, "Just" Conquest, and Tyranny in all of Human History?
When has any faction of mainstream Christianity ~ particularly when aligned with the dictatorial powers of Government and The State ~ ever brought into, espoused, and actually functioned "not by military force or physical strength," but by Zerubbabel's declaration about "spirit"?
Or actually committed itself and then followed thru on making Justice and Peace actually happen in the Real World? Before, that is, the so-called "End Times" when it will be too late for everybody but those "Chosen Ones" who have bought into The System?
Sorry for the delay responding, Ray: Been tied up with Boat Work.
First of all, and before proceeding any further, let me ask You a couple of questions:
~ 1. Do You ~ without any doubt or question whatsoever ~ believe and think that this Universe was created 6000 or so years ago?
~ 2. What is the basis for and source of that belief and thought besides Genesis?
Second of all: Your response did not answer my original Question about what Jesus actually DID against the Roman Empire that actually accomplished Any good for Anybody living under Roman Tyranny at that time.
Good morning my friend Ray. I hope you are doing well today.
I'm glad to hear you are doing well in your 80th year. That's great.
Me, not so much - approaching 80, I am struggling with cancer. It sucks.
I always enjoy reading your knowledgeable and excellent posts on geo-politics in this forum and admire your strenuous efforts as a peace activist.
But as you know, I believe the story of Jesus raising from the dead is a myth.
And the idea of Substitutionary atonement, also called vicarious atonement, the central concept within Western Christian theology which asserts that Jesus died "for us" as bogus. Coming from irrational thinking of superstitious, ignorant ancient men.
Even if there is a God, which I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to believe, how is it just to punish an innocent person, let alone your own son, for the sins of others. It does not make sense.
And two other questions: If Jesus knew he was a God, and going to have an eternal life, surely his crucifixion, albeit painful and cruel, was just a bad weekend for him. What did he have to worry about eh?
As for God, the Bible and war: Wars in the bible begin in the first book, Genesis, and God’s involvement in them is personal and direct. The Israelites fought in accordance to God’s commands in the bible stories, and their God assisted them in the destruction of cities and peoples, including the Amalekites (Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), the Canaanites (Numbers) and the Amorites (Numbers, Deuteronomy). That the Bible is anti-war always seems preposterous to this old man.
Respectfully, Dennis. Take care Ray. "Its all Good" and "No worries" as we say down under.
Sorry to hear of your medical struggles, Dennis. We're with you and supporting you. What would we do without your provocative views here?
Keep fighting and know you're not forgotten here!
Thanks Bill. Your kind words mean a lot to me.
Cheers mate!
Good questions, Dennis. It will be interesting to see the response it elicits.
And hang tough. As they say: "And this too shall pass." With You. ~ jeff