Picking A Fight!
(Corporate Welfare II: The Business
of War)
Sections within this article:
2. Military-Industrial Junkies
3. Pork-Barrels and Welfare for the Elite
4. Fighting for Peace and Freedom
5. Summary & Conclusions
Had enough? Use our SPEAK! function (on the left) to spread
the word and tell others how you feel. Nothing will change until we all SPEAK
out… So make your voice heard today!
Your mother wears army boots, you hypocritical warmonger! Where did you go to
school, “The University of Ignorance and Misinformation”? What would you do if
you learned that the U.S. military was NOT a defender of freedom or an instrument
of peace, but was actually the bad guy, duped into serving the selfish interests
of money-hungry power-whores? If you think we are trying to pick a fight, you
are right… but of the mental (not physical) variety. Attacking closely held
(and rarely questioned) beliefs is a great way to start a fight. So, are you going
to hop into the intellectual ring and go a few rounds, or are you going to run
away and stick your head in the sand, you big cry-baby? Com’n, we double-dog dare
ya!
War By Any Other Name…
War is a serious and sobering subject. It is so devastating (economically, socially,
psychologically, etc.) that its avoidance is the single most important topic for
discussion among and between all people: And there is no topic which deserves
more clear, honest and rational discussion. So why do we all go along with a battery
of lies, deceptions, and rationalizations where the subject of war is concerned?
(Especially regarding our own nation’s role in war and military conflicts around
the globe?)
Cognitive Dissonance is the term psychologists use to describe a
person’s ability to believe two contradictory ideas at the same time. Propaganda
is a language tool used to purposefully deceive an audience and thereby mold its
opinion for the benefit of the deceiver. A Hypocrite is someone
who pretends to be what they are not (or pretends to believe what they do not
actually believe or practice).
More than 2,000 years ago, a spiritual revolution began, based largely on the
simple wisdoms which could be learned and practiced by everyone. Of course, not
everyone practiced what they preached. Soon, many folks learned that, under the
political and social systems then existing, the best strategy for survival and
enrichment was quiet hypocrisy. Consequently, the world devolved steadily as the
faithful prayed for the return of a savior and the disingenuous played on.
Now, nearly 500 years after the Renaissance gave us the Scientific Revolution
and crowned rational thought the New Savior of humanity, we are again surrounded
by cognitive dissonance, propaganda and hypocrisy: This time largely unabashed.
It is no longer an embarrassment to admit to these “faults” since today these
are seen simply as tools in the warrior’s arsenal. Now, such irrational and dishonest
patterns of human thought may even enjoy admiration within the many (and growing)
circles which advocate “winning at any cost”. Within the jungles of the political
arena and the market economy the goal is “Money Uber Alles” and the only rule
is survival of the fittest.
Of course, it is much easier to capture one’s prey when the prey is unsuspecting,
so it is important to pretend that people should have “the golden rule” as their
prime moral imperative. This charade makes the concept of “forgiveness” quite
important, so that the routine transgressors can re-fuel their spirit each week
in preparation for another spree of hypocrisy, and the faithful will accept the
legitimacy of these re-births. Honest, ethical and rational people are seen
(by the cynical powermongers) as quaint dupes who fail to understand politics
and the economics of capital (but who may be ripe as targets for future propaganda).
Meanwhile, everyone is told that ethical folks are model citizens, the
ideal toward which we should all be striving. Thus: Goodbye, simply moral rules;
Hello, tangled woven webs.
You may now ask: How does all of this relate to war?
Most Americans are unaware that the U.S. Department of Defense was originally
(and honestly) named the “Department of War”, until it got a public relations
overhaul in the early 1900’s. The irony is this: With the exception of a single
attack at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, more than 50 years ago, since it was re-named
“The Department of Defense” the U.S. military has been consistently deployed in
an offensive manner outside of our borders, and NOT as the defender of U.S. soil!
[Editors Note: Only 2 weeks after the original publication of this article the U.S. suffered a massive terrorist attack on New York and Washington, D.C. causing U.S. warships and fighter jets to actually be deployed in a defensive manner on U.S. territory, albeit too late to stop the attack which claimed the lives of thousands of U.S. civilians. This in turn has lead many to question what the taxpayers have received for the more than $7 TRILLION dollars spent on “defense” since U.S. hostages were released from Iran in 1981.]
George Orwell’s “1984” was
a masterpiece NOT because it pretended to accurately predict a humanity which
might evolve 36 years beyond its publication, but because it accurately depicted
the awesome horror of an humanity which already existed in 1948. Literary
license and science-fiction aside, Orwell simply documented the powerful psychological
warfare techniques which had already been employed by all sides during and prior
to World War II. While the most dramatic techniques, often called “brainwashing”,
require various acts of direct torture, Orwell also describes routine propaganda
systems used to manipulate and control the general population.
First, there was double-speak: In “1984”, this was the technique of re-defining
words to better suit the motives of the powerful, sometimes even inverting the
original meaning of the word (e.g., “Freedom is Slavery”). This plot line came
from Orwell’s extrapolation of propaganda techniques observed (on both sides)
during WWII. Today, these techniques are so commonplace that we take them for
granted (i.e., in advertising). For example, government subsidies given to corporations
are proudly called “incentives” (as if the basic human greed assumed in Adam Smith’s
model is not enough) whereas subsidies given to individuals are derided as “welfare”
(even though the general welfare is the specific role of civilized government):
A positive word is used to justify an act which is antithetical to true free-market
capital theory, while a negative connotation has been strapped on to nobel and
humane safety nets. Thanks to cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy this form of
propaganda is rarely protested… but it’s psychological effect is dramatic.
In “1984” Orwell also describes how news and history was (and can be) constantly
re-written by an army of analysts in an effort to provide the public with the
‘proper attitude’ necessary to meet the latest objectives of the powers-that-be.
During World War II, of course, Orwell could watch various governments control
and manipulate information to suit their objectives. Today, it is a commonplace
event: Every day analysts and public relations gurus “spin” the “facts” to suit
the needs of the payor, telling the public what to think and why, regardless of
the objective truth. An Orwellian-sized example was the 1970’s change in calculation
of the Consumer Price Index: This re-calculation was specifically designed to
decrease the reported CPI for every period thereafter, thus saving the government
(and corporations) trillions in future social security and retirement obligations.
Notice that the government’s reported CPI has been 2.0% – 3.5% for each
year of the last decade (about 45% cumulative), while the retail prices of the
most common items purchased by average folks (food, houses, cars, utilities, fuel,
etc.) have increased by 100% or more. Today’s reported CPI bears less of a relation
to reality than it does to the needs of the powers-that-be. Thanks to cognitive
dissonance and hypocrisy this form of propaganda is also rarely protested… but
it’s psychological effect is also dramatic.
These are just two of the many forms of propaganda routinely employed by all sophisticated
organizations worldwide (Linguist Noam Chomsky details many more in “Manufacturing
Consent” and “Necessary Illusions”), but the point can now be understood: Within
the framework of a propaganda model the motivation for re-defining the U.S. “War
Department” as a “Defense Department” is clear — War is waged by an evil aggressor,
while Defense is waged by the noble savior. U.S. “Defense” forces can never be
considered the aggressor because they are always deployed to defend someone in
need. Therefore, just as in “1984”, whoever the U.S. military is defending must
be “morally right” and the opponent is therefore “morally wrong”, even if an ex-ally
is suddenly changed to an enemy (e.g., Panama and Iran), or if an ex-enemy becomes
an ally (Germany, Japan). Never are we to question our own morality: We are always
right! Of course, this gives those in control of the military (i.e., a president
with strong ties to big oil) an easy starting position when it’s time to whip
up public sentiment for foreign conflicts (i.e., battles waged to ensure control
of oil prices, supplies, and refining — but SOLD to the public as “defense” of
a foreign regime which just happens to be pliably responsive to American industry’s
demands).
So, in our modern world, what exactly is being “defended” (at a current cost to
U.S. taxpayers of $350 billion per year this equals more than $1,000 for
every citizen or nearly $4,000 per taxpayer each year)? Simply this: The economic
interests of the world’s elite. Some might argue, “The U.S. defends freedom and
democracy against any who oppose it!” A noble idea, but the myth is exposed when
we consider the various right wing totalitarian regimes (such as the Shah of Iran,
Chile’s Pinochet, Indonesian genocide in East Timor, death squads in Guatemala,
etc.) supported by the U.S.: Ruthless regimes completely opposite of democratic
ideals. A more truthful analysis is this: If the citizens of a country CHOOSE
an “undesirable” political and economic system (e.g., communism) then U.S. rhetoric
will be rationalized and modified. The new assertion will be that those people
REALLY want OUR system, they have simply been brainwashed or forced into supporting
something else, so our “freedom fighters” will aid any coup which will “restore”
the people’s freedom to adhere to the capital model dictated by our ruling elite.
(As an important aside: This essay is NOT advocating communism or any other particular
system, it IS attacking hypocrisy and advocating honesty and rationality.) U.S.
involvements throughout Central and South America over the past 100 years clearly
demonstrate the truth: U.S. taxpayers give their sweat and children’s lives to
support a military which is designed to “project power anywhere in the world”
to defend business interests abroad (that is, both American and “allied”
interests around the world)!
The
Center for Defense Information, organized and operated by retired senior military
officers (Admirals, Generals, Colonels, etc.) and other concerned citizens, publishes
a monthly newsletter, “The Defense Monitor”. For more than a decade, since the
collapse of Russian communism, groups such as CDI have been complaining loudly
that (1) The U.S. military budget can be slashed to 1/2 or even 1/3 of its present
size with no effective decrease in our ability to defend our nation or assist
the United Nations on international actions, (2) The U.S. taxpayer bears the
largest military tax burden (by far) of any citizenry worldwide, (3) Congressional
representatives add pork-barrel projects for their districts even when the military
does not want the weapons being procured, (4) the U.S. has sufficient armaments
to destroy the entire planet several times over, (5) U.S. policy is a major obstacle
to worldwide disarmament, (6) The U.S. “Star Wars” Nuclear Missile Defense (NMD)
program is an aggressive and belligerent violation of peace treaties negotiated
by the U.S. but never ratified by Congress. In response to hawkish proponents
of NMD, multiple theater readiness, and continuing $350 billion dollar budgets,
CDI’s Defense Monitor often asks “Exactly who is the enemy?” These military experts
then systematically analyze and discount every potential threat around the globe,
consistently leading to the conclusion that there is no rational reason for such
a maasive military (if the U.S. goal is truly limited to “defense”). Further,
in this modern world the U.S. can and should rely on the combined funds
and forces of the United Nations members to ensure peace and detour aggressors.
The real reason for the massive size and oft-demonstrated reach of the U.S. military
is power: Power to enforce the contracts of transnational corporations (owned
largely by the world’s elite); Power to soften the negotiating positions of local
rulers nominally controlling valuable resources of interest to Western industry;
Power to bully reluctant societies into accepting the economic system dictated
by the private capital elite; Power to protect the interests and assets of the
elite, especially against those populations dominated by the elites (i.e.,
popular revolutions).
To think clearly and rationally about this topic we must remember several important
facts: (1) Killing on foreign turf is an act of war, not an act of defense; (2)
The U.S. military often goes abroad to wage actual war on foreign soil, using
technology and firepower which nowadays dwarfs its opponents; (3) In earlier times,
non-invading troops who fought wars on foreign soil were known as mercenaries;
(4) The rationalizations given for foreign battles always sound noble; (5) The
true motivations are nearly 100% economic (as has been true for nearly all of
Western history). This leaves us with an obvious conclusion: propaganda, hypocrisy
and cognitive dissonance are alive and well.
The Military-Industrial Junkies
In the U.S. there are many corporate welfare schemes: By far, the largest and
most lucrative form of corporate welfare is the guaranteed profit derived from
war by “defense contractors”.
Imagine owning a company whose major client had infinitely deep financial capability
but inadequate (and even corrupt) oversight, which received long-term contracts
guaranteeing a profit over and above all costs, whose products could fail a large
percentage of field tests and might never be actually used, which never had to
worry about unpaid invoices, which could be caught over-charging its client with
impunity, and which enjoyed the protection of the U.S. military and the most powerful
members of government such that it could never be put out of business by a competitor.
If it sounds like this is a riskless business venture, you are right: Welcome
to the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex where war is a for-profit venture completely
isolated from the free-market competition it purports to protect.
The Military-Industrial Complex is the name given to the array of public and private
organizations whose livelihoods are dependant on the machinery of war. This includes
the Pentagon, CIA, NSA and other governmental units, as well as the for-profit
engineering and manufacturing contractors and sub-contractors which design, build
and test weapons and related technologies.
Analysts rightfully argue that “in the interest of U.S. national security we must
maintain a vibrant military research, development and manufacturing capacity”.
In other words, if major defense contractors went out of business, who would make
weapons in times of war? It’s a reasonable point: World War II would have had
a different ending if we had to rely on German and Japanese manufactures for our
engines and munitions. These analysts become hypocrits and propagandists however
when they perform the mental and verbal gymnastics required to argue that the
military contractors are properly organized as private, for-profit businesses.
“Government is lousy at running businesses”, they say, “private ownership yields
the most efficient form of orgnization and provides America with the best technologies
and weapons for its defense”. That argument has several major flaws: (1) There
is NO “free market” for products designed for war; (2) the U.S. government effectively
dictates the entire procurement and production process just as any socialist government
would; (3) the government will not allow these businesses to fail, so they are
insulated from nearly all market feedback; (4) nearly all contracts are let on
a “cost-plus” basis which provides little incentive for efficiency (in fact, stories
of mismanagement, overcharging and failed systems are commonplace); and MOST IMPORTANTLY
(5) When war is profitable to private capital then private capital will have
a vested interest in the promulgation of war, in direct opposition to humanity’s
overwhelming preference for peace and the lowest possible taxes. This last
flaw is clearly the heart of the persistent problem of war: Adam Smith’s “invisible
hand” pulls tight the turnicate and stabs the needle deep into the economy’s vein,
a recurring dose of monetary heroin avoids the pain of admitting the limits of
free-market capitalism as it addicts our economy to war.
The trap was set early last century when Woodrow Wilson and the U.S. Congress
gave private bankers control over our monetary system (The Federal Reserve), and
authorized various bond acts which provided a convenient mechanism for deficit
spending. Thomas Jefferson had warned against such policies as instruments of
the elite and contrary to the maintenance of democracy. Just a few years later,
American boys were being sent into World War I to protect the economic interests
of American and European elites while being told that this was “The War to End
All Wars”. The scam worked like this: The Fed cranked out as much debt-financed
currency as it pleased, saddling the U.S. taxpayer with debt while borrowing the
funds (with interest) from the same old-money elite’s whose interests our military
was defending. Further, the elite built, owned and profited from the armaments
factories which were created to fight the war. To re-cap: (1) Old-money elite
interests are threatened overseas; (2) Old-money elite funds are loaned to the
U.S. at guaranteed rates of return so that (3) for-profit factories owned by elites
could make additional fortunes producing armaments to protect their European interests.
After the tremendous economic inflation produced by this deficit spending the
U.S. citizenry was left to suffer massive economic depression, which the elite
also used to their advantage by consolidating their holdings. These boom and bust
cycles have been created routinely in every generation since (just as Jefferson
had predicted). Not coincidentally, each generation is sold on the need to fight
a foreign enemy on foreign soil (WWI, WWII, Cold War/Russia, Korea, Vietnam, Iran,
Panama, Grenada, Iraq) which allows the military to battle test its technologies
and provide real fighting experience for its highly trained troops, while ensuring
a steady supply of military contracts and deficit spending bonds auctions to meet
the business and investment needs of the ruling elite. U.S. middle-class wealth,
otherwise an aberration of history, was created specifically to buy mass allegiance
as a vehicle for war: As a resource rich country which was difficult to attack,
the U.S. was the perfect site for armaments factories to fight against the revolutions
which threatened European elites throughout the past 100 years. However, since
the defeat of soviet communism the threat has largely abated. Now the U.S. middle-class
is expendable: Thus, our jobs are exported, our wages driven down, our educational
systems weakened, our infrastructure left to decay, while we are taxed into ruin
as our military expenditures drain the remaining strength from our economy.
The truth can now be stated explicitly: The only way to minimize war is to ensure
that NO ONE profits from it. In fact, the best system would be one that actually
paid a direct “peace dividend” to every population which successfully avoids war
and its many inestimable costs. This yields the obvious conclusion that military
research, development and manufacture should be organized strictly as non-profit
entities under the direct control of “a government by and for the people”. Further,
even the financing of war must be render unprofitable: Debt-free issuance of money
is completely appropriate for this objective. We must drop the pretense that the
private, for-profit business model is the ONLY proper and viable form of organization.
We must recognize that while personal greed provides a powerful engine for creativity,
motivation and risk-taking, it is also antithetical to some of society’s most
important goals. The business of WAR is no place for personal greed and economic
self-interest. At best, the business of war is a place for personal sacrifice
in protection of one’s home and family. To profit from war is (or should be) shameful,
unworthy of the word “civilized”.
If U.S. citizens want our country to be a noble defender of peace and freedom,
rather than an ‘Evil Empire’ which allows elites to profit from promulgating war
around the world, the U.S. needs to completely overhaul its Military-Industrial
Complex: It must be structured to provide only disincentives to war, never profits
to private parties. Maintaining our current pretense is simply another act of
of cognitive dissonance and propaganda in the service of hypocrisy.
Pork-Barrels and Welfare for the
Elite
In “The World’s Wasted Wealth”, J.W. Smith argues that nearly every military campaign
in the last 800 years was waged for economic reasons, regardless of the public
rationale used to rally the rank-and-file into battle. Stated simply: If the ruling
classes do not have an economic incentive to wage (or defend against) war, then
there will be no war. This is also the main assumption of Adam Smith’s economic
model, on which capitalism is based: self-interest as the omnipresent motivator.
It is therefore disingenuous for analysts to insist that Rockwell, General Motors,
General Dynamics, Westinghouse or any other military contractor is “serving their
country” or is in any way “patriotic”: These firms are simply operating in their
own best interest, for profit. Further, it is disingenuous to pretend that the
motives of the elite (who contribute many millions annually to ensure their influence
over our government and its policies) are patriotic, humanitarian, or benign.
They are not: The policies advocated by the elite are in their own selfish interest.
Our economic system is based on this aspect of human nature, and our government’s
proper role is to counter-act selfish personal interests whenever those conflict
with the ‘general welfare’. Truthful analysis of economics and micro-motivations
are the keys to understanding what is happening, why, and how to make positive
changes.
Looking beyond the propaganda, and trying to avoid hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance,
it is easy to spot specific economic flaws in the current system: Places where
the rhetoric is out of line with the economic motivations. In theory and in practice
we find that the expensive machinery of the U.S. military (and the lives of our
young people sent into war) serves as the single largest subsidy (corporate welfare)
granted to for-profit enterprises. A properly balanced program, true to the stated
principles of free-market economics, would require any nation the U.S. defends
(and any private interest that the U.S. protects or liberates) to re-pay ALL costs
of such defense or liberation. Imagine how different the world would be if oil
companies and Arab governments had to pay the entire cost of fighting in Kuwait,
instead of forcing the U.S. taxpayers to massively subsidize these profits and
regimes. The only reason our government does not demand repayment of these costs
as a condition of service is that our government is effectively controlled by
the same elites who would receive the bill: Hence, we are repeatedly told that
“Americans bravely and selflessly defend freedom everywhere in the world”, that
we do this gladly and are happy to bear the costs (both in taxes and lives). The
sad truth is that American soldiers DO go bravely and selflessly into these battles,
but they are never told the real reasons they are sent, and they never ask why
they must sacrifice themselves on foreign soil. The American military is used
as the enforcer for the business interests of the world’s elite, including foreigners
who own major stock positions in U.S. corporations (even U.S. military contractors)
and/or who influence the U.S. government through legal and illegal means (from
campaign contributions to “trade incentives” to outright bribery). At the very
least, American taxpayers should demand reimbursement for 100% of military expenses
related to protecting foreign assets and governments. In the modern world, there
is NO valid security reason for U.S. forces to be stationed around the globe,
effectively an ‘occupying army’ on foreign soil: Not when every one of our allies
has the ability to fund its own defense and assemble its own military (with U.S.
training and technology where we find that to be in the best interest of our national
security). Of course, every nation which is overwhelmed by an aggressor (and is
therefore in need of external defense forces) would agree to pay all costs associated
with their defense (what is the alternative?), and every private owner of endangered
assets would do likewise (or will conclude that it is too expensive to do business
within unsafe countries). Ironically, being paid to protect private property on
foreign soil would make the U.S. military officially a mercenary army, a distasteful
label yet precisely its current (albeit unreimbursed) role. There is only one
small group who would naturally object to this change in policy: Those who now
receive all benefits at little or no cost. In the clear light of free-market economics
it is easy to see that a major share of U.S. military expense is in effect
a massive subsidy granted to for-profit business in direct contradiction to ‘free-market’
dogma. This form of corporate welfare is estimated to cost U.S. taxpayers
approximately $200 billion per year(!), many times the cost of U.S. social welfare
programs so heavily criticized by free-market hypocrits.
Another impediment to reform
of this hypocritical, wasteful and destructive war machine involves the politics
of ‘pork’, in this case military contracts awarded to private firms located in
the voting districts of congressional representatives. Even military officials
express dismay that every year the military is forced to accept unwanted weapons
programs costing billions of dollars simply because elected officials are committed
to ‘bringing home the bacon’ for their most loyal campaign contributors (e.g.,
the recipients of those contracts). The local populations care less about the
effectiveness of the weapons they are building than the cash that rolls in for
their efforts. Local economies become addicted to military spending, and slowly
the U.S. economy is a war junky. Everyone claims this is not the case, then adds
‘but do NOT cut the military programs in MY community’. So, again we see a major
flaw in the system which aligns self-interest in opposition to our stated societal
goals. How would we expect such a system to function? It should be obvious that
the result we get is directly related to the rules we set up for the system. Again
the message is simple and clear: We will never have a serious anti-war policy
until we make war a net-negative for everyone involved. In the case of congressional
pork, this would involve both campaign finance reform and returning military-industrial
activities to a non-profit form of management. Communities which have grown addicted
to war-related jobs (which create non-productive assets, e.g., weapons systems)
can be weaned by replacing these programs with Federal contracts for productive
assets (education, housing, technolgy, infrastructure, etc.). This is how for-profit
businesses operate and prosper: Focus investment on productive assets, eliminate
non-productive expenditures. American must either insist on these reforms, or
we must admit we are the single largest proponents of war on the planet. To do
otherwise is pure hypocrisy.
Make no mistake: The costs of supporting such a massive military are steadily
destroying the U.S. economy and our own democracy. Unless we act to dramatically
reform this system, we will see both our living standards and our democracy seriously
eroded within the next generation.
Fighting for Peace and Freedom
Indoctrination works best
when there is plausible evidence to support the belief system being sold. History
demonstrates repeatedly that the evidence need NOT be overwhelming, or even rational,
muchless subject to the rigid requirements of the scientific methodology. The
arguments need only to be plausible, and repeated, and reinforced in a reasonably
consistent manner (e.g., physically, economically, etc.). In the U.S., indoctrination
begins formally upon admission to grade school with a “pledge of allegiance” to
that abstract symbol of our government, the flag, and “one nation under God”.
The fact that our Constitution mandates a separation of government and religion,
while our Pledge of Allegiance contradicts this, is one of the earliest forms
of cognitive dissonance young American minds learn to tolerate. From that point
forward American children endure an awesome curriculum of mental warfare: Pavlovian
bells teach us to respond to the same hours and routine traditionally demanded
in the factories and offices we are destined occupy; Skinnerian conditioning is
applied in team sports, where hierarchy and duty are reinforced, and the competitors
are taught not to question the judgment of the leaders but to simply react precisely
as they have been trained to act; Feedback loops which reward quiet complicity
and the rudimentary skill sets needed by competent drones, and discourage independant
thought or (god forbid) action. The intention is to create a population which
will not question the legitimacy of our leaders, our power structure or our social
institutions, but will respond in a predictable manner to various psychological
buttons installed for the protection of the state. Thus, the correctness of our
economic system is taken for granted, the moral authority of our military adventures
is beyond question, the contradictions littering our mind are left unchecked:
In the end, we will send our children to die in wars on foreign soils in the name
of abstract beliefs which we contradict daily, and we will do this proudly, unaware
of our ignorance and the system’s duplicity.
There should be no doubt that the men and women who serve in America’s military
believe they are serving the causes of freedom and justice. They courageously
risk their lives for these ideals. So, how can we allow our government to repeatedly
send our soldiers into harm’s way on foreign soil, largely to protect the economic
interests of the elite, in effect making our soldiers mercenaries? Why do we allow
ourselves to be taxed into debt and endentured servitude so that the elite can
maintain effective domination of resource and labor markets worldwide?
The real fight for peace and freedom must be waged right here, right now, in our
own country. Do we have the courage to take a good look in the mirror? Are we
psychologically fit to battle for our own mental freedom? Are we brave enough
to confront the ruling elite and demand an end to the hypocrisy which keeps our
taxes high, our future doubtful, and our moral currency in short supply. The fight
need not be bloody or destructive, it is largely mental, mostly within ourselves.
Although the elite have consistently proven themselves ruthless in defending their
positions, perhaps we can come to a new understanding. Just as the English monarchy
yielded some of its absolute powers (while admittedly retaining enormous wealth,
and therefore influence), and just as the Russian people reinvented there society
over the past 20 years, if we simply focus on the creation of a more rational
and non-hypocritical system perhaps we can turn this ship around before it is
too late. Afterall, we, the people of the U.S. control the largest and most powerful
military on the planet. If we refuse, en mass, to support the elite’s selfish
interest (or beleive their hypocritical lies), the elite will have no choice but
to bargain.
Of course, it is entirely possible that we lack the commitment and courage to
actually engage our most awesome enemy: Ourselves.
Summary & Conclusions:
In spite of all the ‘free market’ rhetoric, the business of war is NOT (and never
will be) properly served by private for-profit enterprises: When they profit from
war their economic interests are contradictory to lasting peace. The very idea
of profiting from war is abhorent to decent humanity. But the philosophy of Liberty
& Responsibility can be employed to design a new system which provides for American
security while supporting democracy and freedom worldwide, all at a fraction of
the cost of the current military-industrial complex. Moreover, current levels
of Federal spending (economic support) can be maintained over the short term by
redirecting spending into productive areas of the economy (e.g., education, technology,
infrastructure, housing). In the long run, as the U.S. is weaned from its addiction
to the machinery of war, both the size and cost of government can be reduced,
leading to a healthier long term economy as well as a stronger and truer democracy.
If you are either a true patriot or a true humanitarian, then exercise your liberty
by acting responsibly to “Change The System!”
Use our “SPEAK!” function to alert your peers as well as key representatives.
Then, tell every one of your legislators to “get it done or GET OUT! And we mean
NOW!”
Thank you for your attention, interest and concern.