MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Randolph Bourne’

Randolph Bourne

Posted by M. C. on November 1, 2022

War is the Health of the State

(1918)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

TGIF: The Scourge of Conscription

Posted by M. C. on October 1, 2022

by Sheldon Richman 

The central government would then require an army to enforce conscription, just as it believed it needed conscription to raise an army. Webster said:

It will be the solemn duty of the State Governments to protect their own authority over their own Militia, and to interpose between their citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the State Governments exist, and their highest obligations bind them to the preservation of their own rights and the liberties of their people. [Emphasis added.]

How is that not nullification?

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/tgif-scourge-conscription/

webster

By now Randolph Bourne’s observation that “war is the health of the state” ought to be such a cliche that it would hardly need to be said. And yet, it must be said — often — because many still haven’t gotten the word.

If the state is the adversary of liberty, as it nearly always has been, then it follows that war is also the ill health of liberty. And when one thinks of war, one ought also to think of conscription because it’s often somewhere close by. In a perverse way, Americans have been lucky. The divisive decade-long Vietnam war and access to the latest war-making technology have made the draft just a bad memory for Americans since 1973 and politically toxic. Repeated attempts to bring it back, even with “national service” packaging fortunately have failed.

Outrageously, however, American men 18-25 must register with the euphemistically named Selective Service System, as they’ve been required to do since 1979 when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Make no mistake about it. This is not a registration for a benign contest. As the Selective Service website states:

While there is currently no draft, registration with the Selective Service System is the most publicly visible program during peacetime that ensures operational readiness in a fair and equitable manner. If authorized by the President and Congress, our Agency would rapidly provide personnel to the Department of Defense while at the same time providing an Alternative Service Program for conscientious objectors.

How reassuring. The draft is always in the wings. And the penalty for the felony of not registering is a $250,000 fine and/or a five-years prison term.

The evil of slavery is almost universally appreciated, so why is the draft, which is slavery with an expiration date and high risk of death and injury, not universally condemned? Is it because in many places people believe that governments ultimately own their subjects and may dispose of them as they see fit?

The draft has been in the news lately because Russia, the invader, and Ukraine, the invaded, compel men into combat and other military “service.” It is encouraging that neither Russians nor Ukrainians are fans of that policy. Russian men are protesting and some are getting out of the country. Ukraine has had to forbid men from leaving. Many people just don’t relish war.

It should go without saying that if individuals have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then individuals have the right to decide when they will take up arms, free of a despotic elite or majority. We may not always like the consequences of freedom, but that’s how it is.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why ‘Public Health’ Is the Health of the State – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on April 14, 2021

The reasons for this can be understood by reading the following passages from Randolph Bourne’s famous essay where I have substituted the words “pandemic” or “public health” (in brackets) for the word “war”:

“The republican state has almost no trappings to appeal to the common man’s emotions . . . .  The moment a [pandemic] is declared, however, the mass of the people . . . with the exception of a few malcontents, proceed to allow themselves to be regimented, coerced, deranged in all the environments of their lives . . . .  The citizen throws off his contempt and indifference to government, identifies himself with its purposes . . . and the state once more walks . . .”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/04/thomas-dilorenzo/why-public-health-is-the-health-of-the-state/

By Thomas DiLorenzo

One of the most remarkable articles written about the growth of government during the twentieth-century is “War is the Health of the State” by Randolph Bourne.  Published in 1918, Bourne’s essay explained how it is human nature to mostly ignore the state because the state during peacetime has “almost no trappings to appeal to the common man’s emotions.”  War, however, is the all-purpose tool of the state to stir up the public’s emotions in a way that motivates it to hand over to the state virtually unlimited powers, abandoning all constitutional constraints – and to subsequently relinquish most of their supposedly cherished freedoms.

But the state has other tricks up its sleaves in its never-ending quest for totalitarian control of society.  And do not delude yourself:  All states aspire to become totalitarian by nature – it’s only a matter of time.

Wars are very expensive; they generate antiwar movements, fierce political opposition, and sometimes assassinations.  And they can go very, very badly.  As both Napoleon and Hitler learned when they foolishly invaded Russia.

Other kinds of less risky (to the state) “emergencies” will often suffice as totalitarianism’s propaganda/brainwashing strategies.  As the world has learned in the past year, a “public health emergency” (or the perception of a fabricated and phony one) can do the job just fine without the messiness and expenses of war.  The reasons for this can be understood by reading the following passages from Randolph Bourne’s famous essay where I have substituted the words “pandemic” or “public health” (in brackets) for the word “war”:

“The republican state has almost no trappings to appeal to the common man’s emotions . . . .  The moment a [pandemic] is declared, however, the mass of the people . . . with the exception of a few malcontents, proceed to allow themselves to be regimented, coerced, deranged in all the environments of their lives . . . .  The citizen throws off his contempt and indifference to government, identifies himself with its purposes . . . and the state once more walks . . .”

Every single word of this is a perfectly accurate description of how Americans have behaved ever since the “public health” bureaucrats declared a pandemic.  It was shocking how immediate millions of people so immediately agreed to be regimented, coerced, and deranged in all aspects of their lives.  Of course, the fact that all of the dictates by the local government mini-Mussolinies were enforced by armed police also helped to “convince”  Boobus Americanus that he must genuflect to the state.

Bourne continues:

“[Public health] is the health of the state.  It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the government coercing into obedience the [numerical] minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense.  The machinery of government sets and enforces the drastic penalties; the minorities are either intimidated into silence . . . .  Minorities are rendered sullen . . .”

Those Americans who “lack the herd sense” regarding the Hitlerian dictates of Anthony Fauci and his ilk have been fired from their jobs, canceled from Facebook, Twitter, etc., and generally demonized as enemies of human civilization.  “Minorities” have been literally silenced by the “Tech giants” with no “persuasion” at all involved.  Well-known drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine that could have saved untold numbers of lives were effectively banned, and the common sense approach of boosting one’s immunity with vitamins D and C and zinc (and a half hour of vitamin D-generating sunshine a day) were either ignored or denounced as snake oil by the state, the television networks, the laughingly-called “media” in general, and many others who have prostituted themselves to the pharmaceutical industry.

Once the “public health” bureaucracy declared a pandemic, millions of Americans instantly turned into mental infants, eager for the D.C. bureaucracy to become their real mommies and daddies and protect them from the big bad coronavirus wolf.  As Bourne explained:

“There is . . . in the feeling toward the state a large element of pure filial mysticism.  The sense of insecurity, the desire for protection, sends ones desire back to father and mother . . . .  It is not for nothing that one’s state is still thought of as Father or Motherland.  The [pandemic] has shown that nowhere under the shock of danger have these primitive childlike attitudes failed to assert themselves . . .”

Anthony Fauci, who went to medical school sixty years ago; never actually practiced medicine himself; who has been a tenured federal bureaucrat for more than half a century; and who parades around in public wearing two masks despite having been vaccinated, became every American’s all-knowing, protective “father.”  His Stepford wife-ish, half-body scarf-wearing sidekick, Dr. Deborah Birx, became everyone’s stand-in for “mother.”  Every state and local government in America did exactly what these two bureaucratic weasels demanded that they do.  “Listen to Dr. Fauci,” Joe Biden has repeatedly demanded.  Anyone asking for a second opinion was either ignored or smeared as an enemy of society.  There are myriad stories of doctors who did offer second opinions who were fired or punished in other ways.  (For giving a speech in which she argued that the CDC death count numbers were not reliable since they conflated death with COVID and death from COVID, a physician friend of yours truly was banned from referring her patients to the hospital she had been associated with.  Today, the CDC admits that only 6 percent of the half million or so “COVID” deaths in the U.S. can be legitimately called death from COVID).

As with war, the state attempts to crush all dissent when it comes to its “public health” emergencies.  As Bourne further wrote:

“[D]issent is like sand in the bearings.  Any difference with ‘unity’ turns the whole vast impulse toward crushing it . . . .  the herd becomes divided into the hunters and the hunted, and the [pandemic] becomes not only a technical game but a sport as well.”

Ah, “unity,” the new mating call of the Party of Biden.  Dissent from Unity’s Official Truth, and you will in fact be hunted down, possibly lose your job, or have your life destroyed.

Now, for any readers who still believe the government lie that “we are the government” and, therefore, the government would never manipulate us in these ways, I recommend another online essay, this one by economic historian Robert Higgs entitled “The Song that is irresistible.”  In that essay Higgs states the truism that:

“States, by their very nature, are perpetually at war – not always against foreign foes, of course, but always against their own subjects.  The state’s most fundamental purpose, the activity without which it cannot exist, is robbery . . .  which it pretties up ideologically by giving it a different name (taxation) and by striving to sanctify its intrinsic crime as permissible and socially necessary” (emphasis added).

Or as yours truly has written on numerous occasions:  The purpose of government is for those who run it to plunder those who do not.

The state also “sanctifies” mass murder, by the way, thinly disguised by calling it “war” and by enlisting legions of intellectual prostitutes to dream up myriad excuses and rationales for its mass murdering sprees.  Mainstream “Lincoln scholarship” would be the most egregious example of this kind of intellectual whoremongering (and warmongering).

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Celebrate Our Namesake’s Birthday: The Brilliance of Randolph Bourne – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on May 30, 2020

War is the health of the State

He was able to publish only six antiwar articles in The Seven Arts before its doors were closed by an owner fearful of the Wilson administration and its Sedition Act of 1918, which made it a crime to criticize the Constitution, the government, the military, or the flag.

https://original.antiwar.com/riggenbach/2020/05/29/celebrate-our-namesakes-birthday-the-brilliance-of-randolph-bourne/

Today is the 134th anniversary of Randolph Bourne’s birthday. Antiwar.com named its parent institute for this early 20th century antiwar activist. Read Jeff Riggenbach’s biography of Bourne.

[Transcribed from the Libertarian Tradition podcast episode “Randolph Bourne (1886–1918)”]

Randolph Bourne was an American intellectual journalist who flourished for a few years in the second decade of the 20th century – in the Teens, the decade that ran from 1910 to 1920. Bourne wrote mostly for magazines during this period. His byline was particularly familiar to readers of The New Republic – until his radically antiwar views on the eve of the US government’s intervention in World War I got him fired.

He moved over to The Seven Arts, a newly launched magazine with a smaller circulation than The New Republic and one less well suited to Bourne’s particular talents and interests, since its primary focus was the arts, rather than social and political issues. He was able to publish only six antiwar articles in The Seven Arts before its doors were closed by an owner fearful of the Wilson administration and its Sedition Act of 1918, which made it a crime to criticize the Constitution, the government, the military, or the flag.

Only a few months after The Seven Arts ceased publication, Randolph Bourne died, a victim of the flu epidemic that killed more than 25 million people in 1918 and 1919, nearly a million of them in the United States. That was 1 percent of the population 90 years ago. One percent of the present US population would be more than 3 million Americans. Imagine what it would be like to live through a flu epidemic that killed more than 3 million people in the space of little more than a year. That’s what it was like for Americans living 90 years ago, at the end of World War I.

Most of the people that flu virus killed have long been forgotten – except, of course, by members of their own families. But Randolph Bourne has not been forgotten, not completely. People are still reading his work. They’re still talking about his ideas and about his memorable phrases. The most famous of these has gradually become so widely quoted in our culture that millions of people have heard it, even heard it repeatedly, without ever learning who originally wrote or said it: “War is the health of the State.”

Randolph Silliman Bourne first emerged into the light of day on May 30, 1886 in Bloomfield, New Jersey, a small town fewer than 20 miles from Manhattan. His family was comfortably middle-class, and he was the grandson of a respected Congregational minister. But he seems to have been born unlucky all the same. First, his head and face were deformed at birth in a bungled forceps delivery. Then, at the age of four, after a battle with spinal tuberculosis, he became a hunchback. Then, when he was seven, his parents lost everything in the Panic of 1893, and he and his mother were abandoned by his father and left to live in genteel poverty on the charity of his mother’s prosperous (if somewhat tightfisted) brother. Meanwhile, his growth had been permanently stunted by the spinal tuberculosis of a few years before, so that by the time he graduated from high school at the age of 17, in 1903, he had attained his full adult height of five feet.

Bourne was an exemplary student. His academic record in high school earned him a place in the class of 1907 at Princeton, but by the time he was supposed to appear on campus to register for classes in the fall of 1903, it was evident that he couldn’t afford to attend. He could barely afford books. He was flat broke. And his mother needed his financial help if she was going to go on living the decent, middle-class lifestyle to which she had become accustomed. So Bourne postponed college and went to work. He knew his way around a piano, so for the next six years he worked as a piano teacher, a piano tuner, and a piano player (accompanying singers in a recording studio in Carnegie Hall). He also cut piano rolls. On the side he freelanced for book publishers as a proofreader. Now and then, when musical work was harder to find, he did secretarial work.

By 1909, when he was 23 years old, Bourne had saved enough to cut back on his working hours and try to catch up on the college experience he’d been putting off. He enrolled at Columbia, where he fell under the sway of historian and political scientist Charles Beard and philosopher John Dewey, and began publishing essays in the Dial, the Atlantic Monthly, and other magazines. His first book, Youth and Life, a collection of his magazine essays, was published the year he graduated from Columbia, 1913. And that fall, the now 27-year-old Bourne set out for Europe. In his senior year he had been awarded the Gilder Fellowship for travel abroad, which the historian Louis Filler has called “Columbia’s most distinguished honor” during that period. Bourne spent a year travelling around Europe and pursuing such independent study as interested him.

Then, in August 1914, he returned to America, took up residence in Greenwich Village, and resumed writing for the Dial and the Atlantic Monthly, along with a new, upstart weekly called The New Republic. Actually, it might be more accurate to say that Bourne fled Europe in August 1914 than to say that he merely “returned to America” at that time. For it was in late July and early August of 1914 that Europe – virtually all of Europe – embarked upon the conflict we know today as World War I. Bourne opposed this conflict, and he was especially worried that his own country, the United States, would choose to enter it before long.

Bourne wrote about many subjects over the next four years; he wrote enough about education, for example, that he was able to fill two books with his magazine pieces on the subject – The Gary Schools in 1916 and Education and Living in 1917. But his main subject during the last four years of his life was the new world war and the urgent need that the United States stay out of it.

Bourne made few friends by adopting this stance. It brought him, as the journalist Ben Reiner later put it, “into sharp conflict with the rising pro-war hysteria that preceded America’s entry into World War I.” In the view of yet another journalistic commentator, Christopher Phelps,

few 20th-century American dissenters have … suffered the wrath of their targets as greatly as Bourne did. By 1917, The New Republic stopped publishing his political pieces. The Seven Arts … collapsed when its financial angel refused further support because of Bourne’s antiwar articles.

According to Reiner, the problem was that once Bourne’s “biting attacks on government repression began to appear in The Seven Arts,” this gave “birth to rumors that the publisher … was supporting a pro-German magazine. She … withdrew her support, which closed the magazine down.”

Nor was the demise of The Seven Arts the end of the punishment Bourne had to bear for speaking his mind. Phelps notes that “even at the Dial … he was stripped from editorial power in 1918 – the result of an uncharacteristically underhanded intervention by his former mentor John Dewey, one of the objects of Bourne’s disillusioned antiwar pen.” Phelps quotes a letter Bourne sent to a friend shortly thereafter, in which he laments that “I feel very much secluded from the world, very much out of touch with my times. … The magazines I write for die violent deaths, and all my thoughts are unprintable.” The historian Robert Westbrook put the matter as memorably and eloquently as anyone when he said in 2004 that “Bourne disturbed the peace of John Dewey and other intellectuals supporting Woodrow Wilson’s crusade to make the world safe for democracy, and they made him pay for it.”

Yet the ruination of his career was far from the only price he had to pay. Westbrook quotes John Dos Passos’s claim, from his novel 1919, that, in addition to his professional setbacks, “friends didn’t like to be seen with Bourne,” and that “his father” – who had walked out of his life a quarter-century before – “wrote him begging him not to disgrace the family name.” A few weeks later, he was dead. Several friends, going through his apartment after his death, found an unpublished manuscript in the wastebasket next to his desk. It was entitled “The State.”

“War is the health of the State,” Randolph Bourne wrote in that discarded essay, which he probably died believing would never see print, “and it is during war that one best understands the nature of that institution.” For

it cannot be too firmly realized that war is … the chief function of States. … War cannot exist without a military establishment, and a military establishment cannot exist without a State organization. War has an immemorial tradition and heredity only because the State has a long tradition and heredity. But they are inseparably and functionally joined.

Moreover, Bourne argued,

it is not too much to say that the normal relation of States is war. Diplomacy is a disguised war, in which States seek to gain by barter and intrigue, by the cleverness of wits, the objectives which they would have to gain more clumsily by means of war. Diplomacy is used while the States are recuperating from conflicts in which they have exhausted themselves. It is the wheedling and the bargaining of the worn-out bullies as they rise from the ground and slowly restore their strength to begin fighting again.

Randolph Bourne believed that informed citizens needed to realize the implications of what he was saying. For

if the State’s chief function is war, then the State must suck out of the nation a large part of its energy for its purely sterile purposes of defense and aggression. It devotes to waste or to actual destruction as much as it can of the vitality of the nation. No one will deny that war is a vast complex of life-destroying and life-crippling forces. If the State’s chief function is war, then it is chiefly concerned with coordinating and developing the powers and techniques which make for destruction. And this means not only the actual and potential destruction of the enemy, but of the nation at home as well. For the … calling away of energy into military pursuits means a crippling of the productive and life-enhancing processes of the national life.

Randolph Bourne believed that “we cannot crusade against war without crusading implicitly against the State. And we cannot expect … to end war, unless at the same time we take measures to end the State in its traditional form.” Bourne had reason to be wary when writing sentences like those in 1918. People were being imprisoned and, in some cases, deported for writing things like that. There was a particular prejudice against anarchists and against people who sounded as though they might be anarchists. Perhaps this is why Bourne added the following caveat to his call for ending the State: “The State is not the nation, and the State can be modified and even abolished in its present form, without harming the nation. On the contrary, with the passing of the dominance of the State, the genuine life-enhancing forces of the nation will be liberated.”

Randolph Bourne was an idealist. He hoped for a world free of war, a world in which what he called “the productive and life-enhancing processes” were the dominant processes in our national life. It is appropriate, then, that in the Internet age, he is perhaps best known to the general public, not only for his immortal phrase “War is the health of the State,” but also as the namesake of a nonprofit foundation that runs a popular website. The nonprofit foundation is the Randolph Bourne Institute. And the website is Antiwar.com. The folks who run Antiwar.com would have us believe that their site should not be construed as libertarian in its essence. As Development Director Angela Keaton put it recently, “Antiwar.com is not a libertarian site. Antiwar.com is a foreign policy site operated by libertarians which seeks a broad based coalition in educating about the dangers of Empire.”

I’m inclined to think Randolph Bourne cut through to the heart of the matter more effectively, however, when he wrote that “we cannot crusade against war without crusading implicitly against the State.” In effect, you can’t be consistently and intelligently antiwar, unless you’re libertarian. The folks at Antiwar.com are, of course, aware of this. They quote that very same sentence of Bourne’s on the “Who We Are” page on their website and state further that their own “dedication to libertarian principles” is “inspired in large part by the works and example of the late Murray N. Rothbard.” The work that’s being done 24/7 at Antiwar.com not only honors Randolph Bourne’s contribution to the libertarian tradition; it also helps to assure that that tradition will continue and grow.

This article is transcribed from the Libertarian Tradition podcast episode “Randolph Bourne (1886–1918).”

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Radicalism of Randolph Bourne – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on January 20, 2020

https://original.antiwar.com/Nikhil_Pal_Singh/2020/01/19/the-radicalism-of-randolph-bourne/

Antiwar.com Introduction by David R. Henderson

Nikhil Pal Singh, a professor of social and cultural analysis and history at New York University, has written, in the New Statesman, an interesting article on Randolph Bourne, an antiwar writer during World War I after whom Antiwar.com’s Randolph Bourne Institute is named.

What stands out to this Antiwar.com reader is also the reason the Randolph Bourne Institute is named after him: his principled, vocal opposition to America’s involvement in World War I at a time when that meant being critical of his progressive friends, in particular those at The New Republic magazine.

The article mentions one major way in which Bourne differs from many of us who are critical of the U.S. government’s wars. Professor Singh writes, “Bourne concluded that a more concerted assault was in order, one that would begin by restoring the revolutionary impetus of popular sovereignty against constitutional fetishism-setting a ‘demand for democracy’ against the ‘hidden but genuine permanence of control’ that the constitution gave to America’s ruling classes.” It’s understandable why Bourne thought this way. After all, Congress did follow the Constitution and actually declare war in 1917. But the last time Congress officially declared war was against Romania on June 5, 1942. Yet the executive branch has conducted dozens of wars. I, for one, would welcome a little “constitutional fetishism” because that would mean that Congress would reclaim its rightful role.

While the views of the readers of Antiwar.com vary widely, the vast majority of our readers will find something valuable in Professor Singh’s article.

The Radicalism of Randolph Bourne

by Nikhil Pal Singh for the NewStatesmanAmerica

Randolph Bourne lived a short life that began as cruelly as it ended. At his birth in 1886, a traumatic delivery deformed his face; at the age of four a battle with tuberculosis affected his growth and left his back permanently hunched. Raised in Bloomfield, New Jersey, in a familial milieu characterised by suffocating respectability and downward fortunes, Bourne chafed at the forces and limitations that he felt restraining him. Wryly affirming his distance from the “normal person… of the middle-middle class,” he mused that he must have seemed “very queer out there” in the world. Armed with an ironist’s wit and acid pen, he would soon transform any premature gloominess about his life’s prospects into a startlingly creative vision of personal agency and collective filiation.

In 1911, in one of his earliest published essays, “The Handicapped – By One of Them”, Bourne laid claim to a “philosophy gained through personal disability and failure”. His physical experience, he noted, disposed him against the “cheap optimism of the ordinary professional man” and a “reactionary press and pulpit”, and towards a radicalism of defiance and experimentation.

In his brief, glittering career as a man of letters, Bourne would explore gaps and antinomies – between youth and age, men and women, self-consciousness and social engagement, the uncertain play of culture and the polemical cut of politics. Against the dead weight of American conformism, Bourne sought vitality in fellowship with outsiders: the “despised and ignored… the unpresentable and the unemployable, the incompetent and the ugly, the queer and crotchety people who make up so large a proportion of human folk”.

Read the rest of the article at the NewStatesmanAmerica

Be seeing you

War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society these irresistible forces for uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense.

Randolph Bourne

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

All It Takes Is a Slipup or a Nudge – America’s the next major war

Posted by M. C. on November 13, 2019

Well, truth be told, there are two groups of people who tend to relish war – the military and the political leaders.

I’ve often quoted Randolph Bourne as saying, “War is the health of the state.” He was quite correct.

https://internationalman.com/articles/all-it-takes-is-a-slipup-or-a-nudge/

by Jeff Thomas

Just prior to a war, the majority of people in the nations that are about to become involved tend to assume that another nation is threatening theirs, whist their own leaders are doing all they can to avoid conflict. This is almost never the case.

The “etiquette” of starting wars is for leaders to claim to their people that the last thing they want is war, but the enemy is goading them into armed conflict and, at some point, retaliation becomes “unavoidable.”

The reason for this etiquette is that, almost invariably, the people of a nation have no desire to go to war.

But if that’s the case, why is world history filled with warfare taking place on a regular basis?

Well, truth be told, there are two groups of people who tend to relish war – the military and the political leaders.

I’ve often quoted Randolph Bourne as saying, “War is the health of the state.” He was quite correct. The larger the nation, the greater the need political leaders have for warfare. After all, there’s no situation in which a people feel more greatly that they need their leaders to take charge, than in a time of war.

Political leaders, after all, thrive on taxation and the oppression of basic rights. And they can get away with taxing a people more heavily during a war. They can also remove basic freedoms “temporarily” in order to keep the people “safe.”

Then, when the war is over, taxes never seem to return to their previous low and freedoms never fully return. With each conflict, the state ratchets up its power over the people.

And in modern times, there’s an additional incentive. Since the end of World War II, the US military-industrial complex has been displeased with the fact that peacetime means diminished revenue for them. Increasingly, they’ve contributed heavily to election campaigns for both major parties in every election.

The repayment for those contributions has always been the same – the political class must find excuses to create a new conflict as soon as another one ends, ensuring the continued revenue of the complex.

This has resulted in the US becoming the first and only country that’s in a consciously created state of perpetual warfare. The cost of this, in 2018, was roughly $600 billion – 54% of all federal discretionary spending.

Much of that cost goes to the maintenance of some 800 military bases across the globe, but the military-industrial complex is forever seeking opportunities for expansion, and having been paid for it with campaign funds, political leaders need to find excuses for new conflicts with regularity.

Presently, world leaders are doing their best to deflect taunts by the US. The self-appointed “world’s policeman” is wagging its finger at North Korea with regard to nuclear weapons development, at Venezuela, seeking to replace their leader with an American puppet, at China with regard to islands in the South China Sea and at a host of countries in the Middle East. To each of these, US leaders have said that armed aggression by the US “cannot be ruled out.” And, “All options are on the table.”

As stated above, the peoples of these countries tend to have no desire to go to war. But political leaders have a vested interest in warfare. In addition, military leaders have a stake in the game.

Imagine having graduated from West Point and having spent your military career as an undistinguished desk jockey. By the time you’ve risen to the rank of general, all you’ve done is push pencils. And yet, the reason you joined up in the first place was to become a military leader, with a chest full of battle ribbons.

This is the conundrum that taunts the more sociopathic military leaders – the George Pattons and the Douglas MacArthurs – who, once they’ve been given a command, tend to become carried away in their zeal to create their own legacy through armed combat. The greater the bloodletting, the greater the victory.

In a leadup to active conflict, such generals tend to be like pit bulls on tight leashes – straining to be released so that they can fulfil their destiny.

In almost every case, there are players on both sides who fit this description. As a result, all that’s needed is a small spark to set off armed conflict.

And generally, the provocation that begins a war is a small one. For World War I, all that was necessary was for an archduke of Austria to be assassinated, by a Bosnian teenager, while riding in an open car…

The technical starting point of any major war is, in fact, incidental. Most any excuse will suffice. What’s necessary is two opponents, each of whom accuses the other of attempting to foment aggression. At that point, all that’s needed to light the spark is a young soldier or agitator with an itchy trigger finger, or a politician with a show of bravado, or a military leader who chooses to break from his orders to stand down.

In many cases, if the war does not start spontaneously, a false-flag incident suffices. One country creates an event which it purports is an act of aggression by its opponent. (The recent events in the Strait of Hormuz have a distinct false-flag odour about them.)

Again, the actual catalyst matters little. Once the rattling of sabres begins, as it has, presently, in the Middle East, all that’s required to create a major war is a slipup or a nudge.

Editor’s Note: The US government is overextending itself by interfering in every corner of the globe. It’s all financed by massive amounts of money printing. However, the next financial crisis could end the whole charade soon.

The truth is, we’re on the cusp of a global economic crisis that could eclipse anything we’ve seen before. That’s exactly why bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent new report with all the details. Click here

Be seeing you

War is the Health of the State - Kindle edition by Randolph Bourne. Politics & Social Sciences ...

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Most Prolific killer Of The Twentieth Century is…

Posted by M. C. on July 14, 2017

and throughout history has been government. Not just military deaths but civilian also. Look up war death stats. Civilian deaths equal or exceed military deaths.

When government and it’s media say this or that country is bad we don’t think in terms of average citizens but (rightly) governments, their front persons and all their dastardly acts we are programmed to believe. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why Do “Progressives” Like War?

Posted by M. C. on February 22, 2017

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/why-do-progressives-like-war/

Though involvement by Moscow in the Middle East and Eastern Europe is undeniable, calling it a threat against U.S. vital interests is more than a bit of a stretch as Russia’s actual ability to make trouble is limited. It has exactly one overseas military facility, in Syria, while the U.S. has more than 800, and its economy and military budget are tiny compared to that of the United States. In fact, it is Washington that is most guilty of intervening globally and destabilizing entire regions, not Moscow, and when Donald Trump said in an interview that when it came to killing the U.S. was not so innocent it was a gross understatement.

War is The Health Of The State-Randolph Bourne

The war party minions will do anything to prevent the outbreak of peace.

Be seeing you

phoca_thumb_l_tcobb34

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Thank Cheap Oil For Perpetual War

Posted by M. C. on October 13, 2014

I have wondered since fracking took hold how energy independence will affect our foreign policy. I think I have the answer.

We are back bombing Iraq to stave off ISIS. ISIS, the “moderates” we trained and armed to defeat the only stabilizing force in the Middle East, Bashar Assad.

If there were no ISIS the pentagon would just make up a terror group. Oh wait a minute. They already have.

One hundred “advisers” in Iraq has grown to several thousand in just a few weeks. (Don’t be fooled. Advisers don’t sit on the top of a hill smoking cigars and watching the action). Timelines for eliminating ISIS are now in the 10-20-30 year, “generation” range. Take your pick. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »