Email Message
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    The Will to Create

    Entries in militarism (4)


    WWIII talk and the new State recruitment drive

    Some commentators like Glen Beck really believe that WWIII might be near. Beck predicted the collapse of the Arab Spring, but so did I, and yet I don't predict WWIII. I like Beck and respect most of what he says, but it's highly unlikely any major power will want to go to war directly against other major powers. It's more likely that Super-Powers will use countries such as Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine to fight their "wars". Who knows for what reasons. Powerful States have many reasons to start and participate in international conflicts and internal civil wars -- none of the reasons pertain to national defense, so they're bogus regardless of how they're justified. Humanitarian reasons are usually given, but it could be just as likely that the State wants to create a diversion to keep people's attention off a bad economy, or to create more rationalizations for interventions and defense build-up. The defense industry is humongous and very, very profitable and, thus, influential.

    Terrorism will be an ongoing problem for practically all bigger, economically important nations, and it'll have to be handled with good intelligence and hard-headed dealing with nations who'd prefer they aren't attacked by the US because terrorists are hiding in their country and a few of them do something real stupid. We don't need to continue building world-destroying weapons when we have way more than we need right now. A prepared and well-paid military is necessary, but we have no need for militarism as our nation's main achievement. We don't have much legitimate need for our military right now, and that's as it should be. I know after a decade of frantic activity and attention it'll be hard for the military to stand ready and prepared in the background, but it's time to concentrate on bringing government and the military/industrial complex under control. As Eisenhower warned us, militarism puts liberty at risk.

    A lot of the talk in the US now about Russia and WWIII is a campaign to build up the State and strengthen a government that's not trusted by most Americans. US leaders and international power-players who have a stake in a strong US can't afford for the US government to lose credibility, so they're using the tactic that's always worked in the past, the "last refuge of scoundrels" -- patriotism. Cold War patriotism against Russia is remembered -- all government had to do was warn the people that the USSR was on the prowl in Viet Nam or Cuba or South America and Americans were willing to release the dogs and forget about the Constitution -- just keep us safe and get the bad guys. The Communists were the enemy and the USSR represented the Kingdom of Communism.

    Don't get me wrong, I think communism is a system that always leads to totalitarianism. If America really wanted to save the world, as they said they did when they entered WWI and WWII, then they would have stopped Stalin and Mao who killed far more people and did more damage to the world than Hitler or Mussolini, but that's another story, and everyone should read the historical accounts of the world wars that aren't State propaganda -- they're enlightening.

    Let's chill and gather ourselves and decide what type of military we need, and let's assess our real threats. We need reason and logic, not fear-mongering, abuse and misuse of our troops and phony, pumped-up patriotism.


    Morning Joe 3/8/2013 -- More than 5 minutes on Rand Paul

    Well I guess even Morning Joe understands when a story is too big to ignore, so the crew, sans Joe and Mika, talked about Rand Paul vs John McCain and Lindsey Graham ( the Golden Churls, as I like to call them). Yesterday, the Golden Churls went to the Senate floor to stop the Rand Paul movement, dismissing Paul, stating he is wrong about drones, and then pettily saying he's riling up libertarian kids in their dorm rooms. In return, Paul said that McCain and Graham think the war extends everywhere, even to the US. I would say that the two cranky hawks also believe the war will never end, and that the enemy shifts as they need justifications for expanding and extending the "war".

    McCain and Graham represent what's wrong in the GOP, a party that became more concerned with perpetual war than with economic freedom, peace and prosperity. Our country is economically broken, and there are many unemployed and underemployed Americans who want to get back to their lives -- they're suffering, and the anxiety of not knowing what's coming next from interventionist government is wearing on them. They see all the economic damage done at home, then they hear on the news that an Afghanistan police officer trained by our troops has killed three of our soldiers, or that billions of dollars are missing out of the aid we've given them or Iraq -- on top of this, most know someone who died or was injured in one of the wars, and they understand the sacrifices made. It no longer makes any sense to keep fighting a war that's futile in a country that doesn't change except for the worse. So this is what McCain and Graham are protecting every time anyone brings up any criticism of the war, or protests any violation of our liberties brought about by a State growing more powerful each year.

    Morning Joe didn't discuss all this, but John Heilemann and few others said that it's good to have these debates regarding how far the President can go executing this ongoing War on Terror. We have to have limits on power if we value freedom and individual rights, and this has been the problem. Statists in our government could not admit to limits when Rand Paul questioned and pushed them to give a simple answer about how far the President can go. To hear Graham and McCain, they think the Commander in Chief has all power, but this can't be, not in America. We have a Constitution that expresses limits on power. We have a separation of powers, and Congress has oversight responsibilities over matters of war.

    McCain and Graham are mitaristic dinosaurs who have no appreciation of America's history regarding the principles of limited goverment and economc freedom. We were once a nation of producers and traders, but since the expansion of State power, starting in earnest with Woodrow Wilson, the income tax which financed military adventurism and then all the statist interventions in economic matters, America transformed from producer and trader, peace and prosperity, to Global Police practicing Universal Interventionism. This has caused many problems, although America has helped in global situations which could have had dire global consequences. We need to look back, though, to when interventions first started and ask ourselves if the unintended consequences of interventions have become too costly. We're wasting human lives, resources and our liberties. The price is too high. There has to be a better way to create defenses, shared with peace-seeking nations, that better solve the problem of terrorism. We have to ask if the drone policy under Bush and Obama has created more terrorists than have been eliminated. We have to have this conversation -- we have to find a way back to production, innovation, development, peace and prosperity with a strong national defense, but without being Global Police and unwelcomed nation builders.


    Why we are broke

    Most Americans now know that we have a huge debt and that it's problem, but I'm not sure enough Americans understand why we're broke. Everyone most likely has their private idea of what should be cut and what's a waste, but I suspect very few Americans have thought deeply about our welfare/warfare state, entitlements, the expense of miltarism or possible alternatives to the welfare/warfare state.

    Surely, more and more citizens are becoming concerned and looking into the issue, but politicians are working against understanding by telling constituents such lies as yes we have a debt problem, but in an economic downturn with historically low interest rates, we should borrow and stimulate, build infrastructure, then get responsible later when the economy improves. Of course, this is what people want to hear. No one wants to hear we have to stop the crazy spending, sacrifice and make a transtition from the welfare state to private assistance, so, no politician says these things.

    We desperately need leaders in DC to tell the truth, to explain why we're broke. There's enough blame to go around, and blame is only useful in understanding what has to change. Either leaders in DC will get honest and confess to the American people that statism has failed and we're broke, or reality from outside will break through the national denial and force us to adjust to a different, much harsher world.


    Morning Joe 5/6/2011 -- zombies in love

    Watching Morning Joe today gave me the creeps, just a bit, when I realized that the ongoing praise and adulation of Obama and his handling of the bin Laden operation has not so much to do with Obama, but more to do with a desperate need to see the State as powerful and competent. Obama merely represents the State, and it's a representation to the Left in opposition to what they hated about the State under Bush's representation. The Left has a deep-seeded need for the State to be what they imagine it should be, but since statism has bascially unravelled in the last decade, after decades of gradual decline starting with the New Deal, the Left will take anything to prop up their spirits.

    Our military is a legitimate government responsibility, although the misuse of the military is irresponsible, like what's happening in Afghanistan and Libya and Iraq and the military bases around the world. Since the military seems to be the only part of government working well, Leftists, like who inhabit the table on Morning Joe -- Tina Brown, Mika, Eugene Washington and all the others -- have grasped hold of the bin Laden operation as the "defining moment" for statism under Obama. They couldn't use Obamacare or the stimuli or bailouts, because they all present undeniably serious problems, but killing bin Laden is something no one can criticize, at least no one who loves Amercia.

    Despite the anti-war posturing on the Left under Republican administrations, the Left has a history of building State power through militarism and war -- it's the one reliable route to unopposed expansion of State power. A non-interventionist position is now considered foolish and reactionary by both parties and the majority of Americans. There are no persuasive and influential spokespeople for non-intervention. Libertarians promote non-intervention, but a strong defense -- however, no one is listening to libertarians on foreign policy issues.

    The excitement and pure joy emanating from the Leftists on Morning Joe this week is truly frightening, when military actions and deaths should bring forth sober reflection and regret for these situations, even if they are necessary and justifiable. To use the bin Laden operation, which was successfully carried out by well-trained and courageous military personnel, as an opportunity to aggrandize the President and the State is dangerous. We should be sad that these operations are necessary and hopeful that we can find an end to them, but I suspect, judging from the vicarious thrill the Right and Left have experienced, that there will be a hunger for more. We'll never run out of enemies as long as they are the justification for expansion of State power, and statists can feel all tingly about those few elite in power -- Donny Deutsche was beside himself looking at the photos of the war room, carrying on about how real power is in the hands of only a few, as if this is somehow the way it should be. Jeez, this mindset has got to change -- it must. These people need to get out of DC and NY more often and see what's happening in the private sector. All the turmoil in the world is caused the "few" in control of Nation-States, and if we could be more excited about limiting the power of the few in Nation-States, perhaps the people of the different countries could be more productive in peace and coordination.