This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Endless War Is a Feature – Not a Bug – of U.S. Policy

George Washington's picture




 

We are in the middle of a perpetual series of wars. See this, this, this and this.

As just one example, in 2010 the war in Afghanistan became the longest war in U.S. history.  But - no matter what you've heard - there are no plans to get out any time soon.

As Glenn Greenwald notes today:

Despite the happy talk from [the Pentagon's top lawyer, the war on terror] is not ending soon. By its very terms, it cannot. And all one has to do is look at the words and actions of the Obama administration to know this.

 

In October, the Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported that the administration was instituting a “disposition matrix” to determine how terrorism suspects will be disposed of, all based on this fact: “among senior Obama administration officials, there is broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade.” As Miller puts it: “That timeline suggests that the United States has reached only the midpoint of what was once known as the global war on terrorism.”

 

The polices adopted by the Obama administration just over the last couple of years leave no doubt that they are accelerating, not winding down, the war apparatus that has been relentlessly strengthened over the last decade. In the name of the War on Terror, the current president has diluted decades-old Miranda warnings; codified a new scheme of indefinite detention on US soil; plotted to relocate Guantanamo to Illinois; increased secrecy, repression and release-restrictions at the camp; minted a new theory of presidential assassination powers even for US citizens; renewed the Bush/Cheney warrantless eavesdropping framework for another five years, as well as the Patriot Act, without a single reform; and just signed into law all new restrictions on the release of indefinitely held detainees.

 

Does that sound to you like a government anticipating the end of the War on Terror any time soon? Or does it sound like one working feverishly to make their terrorism-justified powers of detention, surveillance, killing and secrecy permanent?

Why is the war of terror being waged indefinitely?

Many have said that “war is the health of the state”,  and Thomas Paine wrote in the Rights of Man:

In reviewing the history of the English Government, its wars and its taxes, a bystander, not blinded by prejudice, nor warped by interest, would declare, that taxes were not raised to carry on wars, but that wars were raised to carry on taxes.

George Washington – in his farewell address of 1796 – said:

Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty.

James Madison said:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Madison also noted that never-ending war tends to destroy both liberty and prosperity:

Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Greenwald noted in October:

As the Founders all recognized, nothing vests elites with power – and profit – more than a state of war. That is why there were supposed to be substantial barriers to having them start and continue – the need for a Congressional declaration, the constitutional bar on funding the military for more than two years at a time, the prohibition on standing armies, etc. Here is how John Jay put it in Federalist No 4:

“It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.”

In sum, there are factions in many governments that crave a state of endless war because that is when power is least constrained and profit most abundant.

Indeed, top American military officials and national defense experts say that our specific actions in the “war on terror” are creating more terrorists and more war.

As Greenwald points out today, the endless nature of the war on terror is a feature, not a bug:

There’s a good reason US officials are assuming the “War on Terror” will persist indefinitely: namely, their actions ensure that this occurs.

 

***

 

There’s no question that this “war” will continue indefinitely. There is no question that US actions are the cause of that, the gasoline that fuels the fire. The only question – and it’s becoming less of a question for me all the time – is whether this endless war is the intended result of US actions or just an unwanted miscalculation.

 

It’s increasingly hard to make the case that it’s the latter. The US has long known, and its own studies have emphatically concluded, that “terrorism” is motivated not by a “hatred of our freedoms” but by US policy and aggression in the Muslim world. This causal connection is not news to the US government. Despite this – or, more accurately, because of it – they continue with these policies.

 

***

 

There is zero reason for US officials to want an end to the war on terror, and numerous and significant reasons why they would want it to continue. It’s always been the case that the power of political officials is at its greatest, its most unrestrained, in a state of war. Cicero, two thousand years ago, warned that “In times of war, the law falls silent” (Inter arma enim silent leges).

 

***

 

If you were a US leader, or an official of the National Security State, or a beneficiary of the private military and surveillance industries, why would you possibly want the war on terror to end? That would be the worst thing that could happen. It’s that war that generates limitless power, impenetrable secrecy, an unquestioning citizenry, and massive profit.

 

Just this week, a federal judge ruled that the Obama administration need not respond to the New York Times and the ACLU’s mere request to disclose the government’s legal rationale for why the President believes he can target US citizens for assassination without due process. Even while recognizing how perverse her own ruling was – “The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me” and it imposes “a veritable Catch-22″ – the federal judge nonetheless explained that federal courts have constructed such a protective shield around the US government in the name of terrorism that it amounts to an unfettered license to violate even the most basic rights: “I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret” (emphasis added).

 

Why would anyone in the US government or its owners have any interest in putting an end to this sham bonanza of power and profit called “the war on terror”? Johnson is right that there must be an end to this war imminently, and Maddow is right that the failure to do so will render all the due-process-free and lawless killing and imprisoning and invading and bombing morally indefensible and historically unforgivable.

 

But the notion that the US government is even entertaining putting an end to any of this is a pipe dream, and the belief that they even want to is fantasy. They’re preparing for more endless war; their actions are fueling that war; and they continue to reap untold benefits from its continuation. Only outside compulsion, from citizens, can make an end to all of this possible.

Indeed,  the American government has directly been supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups for the last decade.  See thisthis, this, this and this.

(Remember, if there aren’t scary enough enemies in real life, we’ve got to create them.  Oops … did I say that out loud?)

And the American government lies – and even kills its own – to justify new wars.

Top American economists say that endless war has ruined our economy.  It benefits a handful of elites, while levying a tax on the vast majority of Americans.

Congress members – part of the super-elite which has made money hand over fist during this economic downturn – are heavily invested in the war industry, and routinely trade on inside information … perhaps even including planned military actions.

No wonder the American government is making the state of war permanent, and planning to unleash new, widespread  wars in the near future.

Postscript: Under Bush, it was the "war on terror". Obama has re-branded the perpetual fighting as "humanitarian war".

But - underneath the ever-changing marketing and branding campaign - it's really just the good 'ole military-industrial-and-banking complex consolidating their power and making money hand over fist.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:18 | 3125181 diogeneslaertius
diogeneslaertius's picture

War by Other Means, mop-up operations, and Eugenics

they dont stage global conflicts anymore

its inefficient

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:23 | 3125184 Element
Element's picture

Have you considered the exceedingly probable possibility that Iran doesn't feel that way about it?

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 10:47 | 3125074 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

---Originally it was limited and not to be "a war on Islam"---

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."

Secretary of Defense

Worldwide Intelligence Update...

“Seek the Lord and His strength; seek His face continually.” 1 Chron 16:11.

“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us.” (With picture of soldiers in uniform, heads bowed in prayer, 17 March 2003.)

“If I rise on the wings of the dawn,/ if I settle on the far side of the sea,/ even there your hand will guide me,/ your right hand will hold me fast, O LORD.” Pslam 1, 19, 9-10. (19 March 2003.)

“Their arrows are sharp, all their bows are strung; their horses’ hoofs seem like flint, their chariot wheels are like a whirlwind.” Isaiah 5:28. (20 March 2003.)

“Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” Ephesians 6:13. (31 March 2003.)

“Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.” Proverbs 16:13. (1 April 2003.)

“Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.” Joshua 1:9. (3 April 2003.)

“It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.” 1 Peter 2:15 (Over a picture of Saddam Hussein, in a dictatorial pose, 7 April 2003.)

“Open the gate that the righteous nation may enter, The nation that keeps faith.” Isaiah 26:2 (8 April 2003.)

“Suddenly the fingers of a human hand appeared & [sic] wrote on the plaster of the wall, near a lampstand in the royal palace. The king watched the hand as it wrote… This is what these words mean: Mene: God has numbered the days of your reign & brought it to an end. Tekel: you have been weighed on the scales & found wanting. Peres: your kingdom is divided.” Daniel 5: 5-28. (Over picture of Saddam, and American tanks in one of his palaces, 9 April 2003)

“The king is not saved by a might [sic] army; A warrior is not delivered by great strength. A horse is a false hope for victory; Nor does it deliver anyone by its great strength. Behold the eye of the LORD is on those who fear Him, On those who hope for His loving kindness, to deliver his soul from death.” Psalm 33-16-19 [sic]. (On a collage showing the statue of Sadda falling, an Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and an Iraqi woman celebrating. 10 April 2003)

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 06:05 | 3126729 The Heart
The Heart's picture

Be Thou Faithful until Death...and I will give thee a Crown of Eternal Life.

+

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 10:20 | 3125049 Seer
Seer's picture

"in fact the basic Bush policy of respect for local customs and control still seems in tact"

Don't confuse benevolence with deception.

If some faction doesn't bend then you eventually have to bend their entire underlying fabric (that's why folks like Freddie exist).

I believe/trust no one who is pushing anything.

"but the policy which still remains completely opaque in my view...has obviously been fundamentally altered under this Administration with their "secret plan to give Wall Street even more money.""

Really?  You can't figure it out?  What's there to figure?

It's NOT about "giving Wall Street more money."  It's about keeping a structure functioning.  That structure delivers resources and goods that allow TPTB to maintain control.  GW Bush pushed to secure oil (I'm most certain that a peek at Cheney's energy task force notes will back this up- they were BOTH heavily connected to the oil industry!).  Obama, though perhaps not having as much of a history of connection with the financial sector in comparison, was, nonetheless, picked by the financial sector (and, for all we know, the support, perhaps as a nod only, also came from the oil/energy sector).  TPTB have to change things up a bit just to keep the consumers interested; it's like changing car designs, or dress styles, from time to time (one year "square" is the rage, couple years later it's "round.").

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 07:22 | 3124919 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

The Luciferian elite need war, so they create it. It's pretty simple. Great piece. :)

And sure, they reap financial profits, but war for the sake of war is a motive as is ritual.

The brackets in your first indented quote look like they need some editing or something, George. Shouldn't they end after lawyer and not after terror?

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 11:03 | 3125092 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

I'm sure passive sheep are just as appealing to them as angry sheep and they don't end up wasting gigabucks on fuel that way.

 

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 07:59 | 3124949 Seer
Seer's picture

If "they" have existing control then why is war even necessary?  War is unpredictable.

War is undertaken in order to maintain control over resources which in turn enable control of the people/masses.

Two fundamentals ought to be observed:

1) POWER doesn't care about "profit," it cares about (maintaining) CONTROL;

2) CONTROL requires physical resources (sure, for a time virtual constructs can work, but eventually the demands of empty stomachs trump those of empty(?) brains).

GW, what do you say?

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 06:16 | 3126730 The Heart
The Heart's picture

"but eventually the demands of empty stomachs trump those of empty(?) brains)."

Very true and well put. Thank you Sir.

When they are empty headed and hungry at the same time, the stomach becomes god. It will take a strong Heart for people to not kill their neighbor for his can of tunafish.

 

 

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:22 | 3125185 laboratorymike
laboratorymike's picture

If "they" have existing control then why is war even necessary?

    Just as it said in the article: war is necessary to justify new taxes and new expansions of power. This is why the PATRIOT Act came out of nowhere right after 9/11, and this is why "gun control" is brought up every time there is a mass shooting. People are often unwilling to give up their freedoms under normal circumstances, but people become much more willing when there is an "emergency." War also places into minds the idea of patriotic self sacrifice; after all, if you are willing to give your life for your country, why not pay taxes or give up a little freedom to help win the war? At the end of the war, the taxes and expansions of power are kept, and so freedom is eaten incrementally.

    As a researcher, I recently had the opportunity to go to a conference in DC, and at said conference there was a workshop I attended called "Fostering social acceptance of technology." The goal outlined in said talk is to achieve something I would call "scientific management," in which all questions about ethics and daily life are made by university professors and individuals. There were no objections from any of the professors present, and it was clear that all the ethics professors do is invent justifications. A few students like myself balked at the idea, but I couldn't help but admit that there is no real academic defense against tyranny in our university system.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 21:07 | 3126201 laboratorymike
laboratorymike's picture

EDIT: "university professors and individuals" should be "university professors instead of indivuduals"

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 13:40 | 3125319 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

war (or constant drumbeats for war) also ramps up the collective FEAR quotient.

the key is to trigger the repitilian brains in as much of the populace as possible.

the challenge at the moment is that an increasing # of the populace is wising up to the old tricks.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 17:11 | 3125724 laboratorymike
laboratorymike's picture

    I would argue that this is the endgame for most totalitarian societies; at first only a few are affected, but eventually the system's need to consume more taxes, more material, and more lives means that EVERYONE is at risk. The public figures it out at the latter stage, either by getting wise or because the state really does start eating everyone. Then the tax base erodes from protest, underconsumption, and open markets, and there is not enough money to pay for storm troopers, even with inflation.

    That's the end game: the tax base erodes, the state can't afford the dependent classes, and then it drops more and more of its supporters in a desperate bid to keep functioning. The greatest threat to "national security" is irresponsible fiscal policy, always has been and always will be, and it is something a state can only get away with for a short time before its bankruptcy.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 07:16 | 3124914 Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture

War is a business and business is good...

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 07:52 | 3124942 Seer
Seer's picture

PREPARING for war is a business.  War itself is HELL, and if anyone thinks that WAR for the sake of WAR is the goal they ought to actually study war.  Because people profit off of war (people profit off of EVERYTHING) it doesn't necessarily follow that they drive the war(s).  No, I think that there are opportunists on the front-side (preparing) as well as on the back-side (splitting up the spoils).

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 10:52 | 3125077 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

front-side (weapons), middle (contractor mercs), and end (tax credits for hiring 'heroes', VA loans, patching up broken soliders etc).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krcNIWPkNzA

Zorg == Cheney!

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 06:56 | 3124900 Seer
Seer's picture

ALL WARS ARE ABOUT RESOURCES.  Everything else that's said is either to hide/cover* this fact and to contain local unrest (due to tensions forming due to a lack of resources**).

* Nationalism always portrays the people as virtuous, in which case killing others for resources couldn't be seen as virtuosity, hence the need to tell ourselves all sorts of lies/stories: "we're spreading democracy," "we're stopping human rights abuses," "we're fighting terrorism," "we're stopping communism."

** My animals tend to get restless when they are out of food.  Because it's a bit hard to grow one's feed (I'm aiming in this direction, though I never expect to make it there in my lifetime, just setting the stage for it to be picked up and, hopefully, made possible by those that will inherit my farm) one has to acquire the feed from "off-farm;" when/should feed costs be too high one either has to "steal" for it (remove funds from some other category) or to reduce the number of animals.  Stalin dealt with everything internally, in which case the "numbers" were reduced.  The US is "democratic," so the wolves decide to find their meal abroad.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 11:56 | 3125152 andrewp111
andrewp111's picture

 Why are at war with Islam? Muslims are the only people on earth who are actually reproducing. Their inherent claim on resources is thus growing. But the earth is full. The USA needs a large share of the planet's resources just to maintain GDP as it is. The USA is a supreme world dominator operating on ther principle of manifest destiny. Islam is a supreme dominator that claims the inherent right to rule over all. Two supreme dominators cannot coexist in the same sphere of influence. One has to be destroyed so the other can prevail.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 17:23 | 3125762 bigkahuna
bigkahuna's picture

What about the Chinese and the Russians? I think they would like a piece too.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:59 | 3125255 koncaswatch
koncaswatch's picture

I'll see your muslim reproducers and raise you my latin america reproducers.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 09:01 | 3124991 onthesquare
onthesquare's picture

I do not believe "Nationalism" has much to do with the real reason of these wars.  The US and its citizens are being screwed by the masters of the banking cartel.  Obama is a paid puppet to them as is the rest of Washington's elite.  This is not going to end well nor will there be any decisive victory of any campaign.

The governments of a lot of nations have been seized by the bank cartel, which is controlled by a few people and they have no idea how much power and control will quench their appetites.

Remember to love your children and give them a hug everytime you can.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 10:06 | 3125033 Seer
Seer's picture

Wars are about securing resources for continued control.  Nationalism is just a marketing front/aid: Bernays finally figured out how to do it without a government front/mask.

Further, it differs little in outcome whether it's a government or some other consortium that is in control.  Any way you slice it it's about POWER.

"Remember to love your children and give them a hug everytime you can."

And let this be our true sense of salvation...

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 06:24 | 3126731 The Heart
The Heart's picture

"And let this be our true sense of salvation..."

...Love.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 19:47 | 3126036 Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

That works for me.

Nationalism is the ultimate marketing tool when you have to move a lot of war.

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 06:38 | 3125660 Ghordius
Ghordius's picture

+1 your grasp of the thing is simply excellent

-----------

edit/add: nearly all wars are about resources/control/power

marketing of wars often involve/engage nationalism

nationalists would respond to that by asserting that they are used

at the end, war is a continuation of politics with other means, while

national politics is a intra-national struggle about power and

international politics is a inter-national struggle about power

so it's also all a struggle for power

but also politics=talking and war=forcing

or as a relative of mine quips

politics is love, war is hate

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:19 | 3125182 diogeneslaertius
diogeneslaertius's picture

some really nice commentary Seer

especially about Bernays

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 08:02 | 3124951 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

seer, take an afternoon and watch joel salatin on the uboob.   he claims to buy no off-farm feed and raises a bunch of critters.   even if his claim isn't 100% correct, what he's doing is pretty remarkable.

also, look into growing sunchokes.   they're easy to grow, spread like wildfire, very nutritious and animals love 'em.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 09:08 | 3124994 Seer
Seer's picture

Thanks for thinking of me :-)

My wife and I are big Salatin fans.  We're aiming at a grazer-follower model: everything is based on portability (coops, fencing etc.).

I don't believe that Salatin raises feed for his poultry.  And, I don't believe that he's non-GMO (I'm unwilling to accept GMO crap): pretty sure, however, that the feed is locally sourced, which DOES count.

As to sunchokes, yeah, my wife planted some this past year but they didn't do too well: I would like to note, however, that as a relative newcomer to gardening her vegetable garden did do well, better than some of our more seasoned neighbors' gardens. It wasn't really for feed though.  Actually, I'm not sure what her intention was: I have a hard time keeping up with her! :-)  But... climate, soils and location heavily dictate what one can or can't grow: soils can, to some extent, be altered, but that can take a LONG time.

My wife wants to raise some pigs.  Most they can do on forages/grazing is perhaps 40% (under ideal circumstances, and even at this number I'm highly skeptical), which means you have to come up with 60% elsewhere.  I've been dragging my feet on this after watching feed costs skyrocket (for others).

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 13:29 | 3125310 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

no worries, sorry for assuming that you didn't already know about him...should've known better!

some thoughts:  

do you feed your chix your garden waste?   that should be good for some.

how long do you let your chix stay in one spot before you move them?   do you seed that area after they're done with a cover crop, like clover or rye?   if not, you might want to consider, as you could slowly introduce more nutritious species into your grazing areas as you rotate the poultry.

got a lot of dead leaves?   lotsa bugs in them piles.

was talking with someone last night about sprouting the feed.   he was saying that he uses a significant portion less in quantity of feed by sprouting due to the high nutritional content of the sprouts.   he says the black oil sunflowers are the best.   they're easy to grow too.

rock dust is also a good supplement.   good for the grit aspect and also for nutrients.   you get that for free at your local gravel pit.   i would recommend a basalt base, but if you have tested your soil already, you can get something that will help balance it out.

also second what optimator said: human food waste is such a great untapped resource.   since you're strict on non-GMOs, this may be much more difficult to source, but we found an organic restaurant where we trade their waste for food.   it's awesome since they are still using ingredients from all over the world, which give the chix a well-balanced nutritional profile.

also this :  http://www.richsoil.com/raising-chickens.jsp

not assuming you've not already thought of these things, but sometimes it's just good to put it out there to stimulate some new ideas.   definitely agree that reducing feed costs is probably one of the most (if not, THE most) important objectives anyone raising animals should have.   but this is where collective intelligence may work wonders...

 

 

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 12:33 | 3125206 optimator
optimator's picture

Seer,

You can get the other 60% for nothing, or next to nothing.  Make some friends at your local bread distributor stores by chatting with them.  They can give you the bread that can't be sold because it has expired.  Years ago my Dad would do that and come home with a truckload of bread, rolls, cakes, cookies, you name it.  It may have gotten stale and hard, but the pigs loved it.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 13:25 | 3125302 Coast Watcher
Coast Watcher's picture

True that, and worth looking into if other farmers haven't beaten you to it. Another strategy is to buy up all the leftover garden seeds at the end of the season from local stores, then plant them out the next spring, very close, no thinning, in strips according to their maturity dates. Throw in some extra beets and mangels and carrots if you can. Then let the hogs self-harvest each strip as the season progresses. Really cuts the feed bill.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 07:49 | 3124939 Seer
Seer's picture

I wish those down-arrowing would put up some sort of argument for their position.  Sigh... the world is awash in the non-seeing.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 13:19 | 3125295 Coast Watcher
Coast Watcher's picture

Some folks are still "my country right or wrong" types, and for others, well, the truth hurts.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 11:31 | 3125123 GMadScientist
GMadScientist's picture

Maybe they can't read "Johnny Got His Gun".

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 03:21 | 3124784 headless blogger
headless blogger's picture

People everywhere benefit and thrive on endless wars. They are distructive to the overall society, but there are enough people that cash in on it for them to go on until they reach a WWI or WWII level of distruction...then it stops for a short time while all sides can re-group.

The biggest beneficiaries are the "families", which still rule over the Western societies. These are the big banking dynasties, oil dynasties, and others of assorted backgrounds and interests. They cannot tolerate a peaceful world, and as the people all over the planet started connecting up with each other due to technology advancements, they saw they would have to establish global rules based on what is best for them...hence, we get the Elite-Controllers version of globalization...which is really a Modern day feudal system, which I've been saying since 1989 and my days at Boeing.

so, it is up to the people to re-define the Elite-controllers definitions of globalization.

A good article on modern day serfs and feudalism:

Serfdom and the Feudal System: What’s Old is New Again
Sat, 01/05/2013 - 22:02 | 3126283 Zap Powerz
Zap Powerz's picture

America has become a nightmare.  A welfare and warfare night-fucking-mare.

We are forced to participate in the destruction of human beings.  The fruit of our labor is stolen from us and used to spiritually and physically destroy people.

Welfare destroys the will to live and fend for youself; it makes you a zombie.  It ruins human potential.

Warfare, obviously, is incredibly destructive of property and human beings.  Innocent human beings.

We are slaves to a destructive Leviathan.  What a sad state of affairs.  What a sad, evil nation America has become.  A nation that literally depends on the destruction of human beings.

Sun, 01/06/2013 - 06:36 | 3126734 The Heart
The Heart's picture

Good Morning Bro Z.

"it makes you a zombie."

Did you know sir that the slow poisoning of the brain from slow radiation accumulation over a period of a few years is synonymous with the definition of being a zombie?

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 11:21 | 3125110 NvrGivUp
NvrGivUp's picture

As usual, the answer is found when you FOLLOW THE MONEY...

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 15:40 | 3125522 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

In the USA the meme has been planted that WWII ended the depression.  So it is an article of faith that war is necessary for the economy's survival.  I believe that this meme infects all 100% of the USA; J6P, economists and the 1%.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 18:17 | 3125879 Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill's picture

Unfortunately that meme  is correct but only because of the disastrous policys of

FDR destroyed what was left of the US economy.That part is always left out because

Oldbongwater is following a similar, but worse ones.

WWII was a general mobilisation of all,not at all comparable with the GWOT.

There is no way it will benefit any ,but a select few.

Sat, 01/05/2013 - 17:14 | 3125736 laboratorymike
laboratorymike's picture

Perhaps, but people believe the meme only until it stops working. Then questions explode.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!