Making war makes money. Winning a war makes more money.
The desire to keep making war requires building up and maintaining a standing army.
When many nations are pursuing this general course, the "threat-need" for maintaining a standing army rises to a new level.
The "need, for the sake of defense and preparedness," to strengthen armies is exactly what war makers exploit.
Dismantling this whole operation, by scaling back foreign military
bases, withdrawing troops, and setting boundaries and no-go zones is
anathema to war makers.
If JFK, as a few scholars suggest, was planning to get out of Vietnam,
and if he was also in the process of planning space missions with
Russia, these would have been ample reasons for his assassination.
Everyone has his favorite reason for JFK's murder---he wanted to take
money-creation out of the hands of the Federal Reserve; he was about to
blow the whistle on UFO secrets; he was on the verge of destroying the
CIA; he signed the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty with Russia; he and his
brother were trying to destroy the Mafia; JFK was about to lay taxes on
multi-billion-dollar Liberian shipping operations; anti-Castro Cubans
hated him because he failed to back the Bay of Pigs invasion; he was
determined to push forward an ocean-turbine technology for the
generation of electricity. Everyone who has a reason for JFK's murder
is quite sure it is the primary or only reason.
If withdrawal from Vietnam was one reason, it speaks to the "sensitivity" of the war machine and its allied industries.
If international peace broke out, what would happen to the US economy?
To be more precise, what would happen to those corporations who depend
on the largest government military contracts? To be even more precise,
what would happen to these corporations, who depend on government taxes
and money invented out of thin air by elite government-backed banks?
Those corporations would imagine new enterprises or crash.
And?
The nation would have to find another way to have an economy. Would this signal, beyond the chaos, the end of the world? No.
Along a similar front, if gangs were wiped out, along with drug cartels,
and if the main terrorist groups were isolated, attacked, and defunded
(cut off from drug money, diverted government tax money and elite
invented money), other sectors of the economy would take a hit, but
again, the world would not end.
Along a similar front, if corporations who manufacture and sell poison
(e.g., drug companies, pesticide companies) were punished to the full
extent of the law, and even disbanded, the economy would take another
hit, but again, the world would not end.
Along a similar front, if cheating, lying, and thieving banks and allied
Wall St. firms were punished to the full extent of the law, and even
disbanded, the world would not end.
What would the new emerging economy look like? That would depend on the
imagination, and challenging work, done by individuals (not
governments) who see new possibilities. That would depend on people who
attempt to wake up a population muddled in passive acceptance of
whatever consumer products are shoved down their throats.
Yes, I know all this speculation sounds like dreaming impossible
dreams. But while I'm at it, here is another one: what would happen if
everything I've written so far in this article became the subject of
reasoned debate in colleges? I'm talking about serious lengthy debate
about a new economy.
Several things would happen. First, it would come to light that the
overwhelming number of students are intellectually incapable of carrying
on such a dialogue. That in itself would rank as an inconvenient
truth.
Students don't learn how to think in a rational fashion. They know next
to nothing about logic. Most of them aren't even aware of what a line
of reasoning looks like. They can't follow such a line.
Second, it would become obvious that the overwhelming number of students
are incapable of conceiving a new economy that is not spearheaded and
controlled by government.
Students are brainwashed into thinking that all significant change must
come from above. It must be planned. It must be designed to produce
some vague outcome called "equality."
This preference for central government control and planning is sustained
even though, with a little thought, it's clear that government has been
the driving (and permissive) criminal force that protects the very
economy that is causing all the trouble.
Third, it would become obvious that the faculties of colleges are also
intellectually incapable of carrying on this debate. They, too, have
been trained to ignore logic. They've also been trained to push a
values-laden agenda that celebrates centrally planned collectivist
economies.
Fourth, the idea that free and independent and creative individuals
could spearhead a new economy seems outrageous, preposterous, and even
illegal to the mass of students and professors. For them, all
non-group-associated individuals, viewed in any light, are, a priori,
greedy criminals.
So actually, this article isn't about creating a new economy. It's
about the barriers to a rational, extensive, lengthy dialogue and debate
about the creation of a new economy. A dialogue, by the way, that goes
beyond what might be contained in cell phone texting or tweeting. How
shocking.
Here is just one idea that might spring up in the kind of dialogue I'm
talking about. Urban farms. They already exist, of course. In each
case, they began as an idea in the mind of one individual. They didn't
spring to life, originally, when six people, walking down the street,
suddenly turned to each other and said, "Urban farms."
These are very large operations that grow food crops for residents of
cities, especially those who can't afford good food. The people
themselves learn to grow the crops.
What would happen, what would be the consequence of, say, 10,000 urban farms across America?
What would this do for the health and morale of people in cities? How
would profit be made? And, peripherally, why is it that local, state,
and federal government haven't backed such an idea---for an
infinitesimal fraction of the money they spend on alleviating poverty;
money that, by the way, seems to make things worse.
Again, peripherally, what would happen if thousands of college students,
who matriculate on privileged campuses and yap endlessly about their
lack of privilege, instead turned their victimhood-energies to starting
urban farms and working in them? Would the world end? Would the sky
fall? The same questions could be asked about the students' professors,
many of whom are merely paid propagandists of the State.
There are all sorts of interesting questions that could arise in a real
debate/dialogue. Here's another one: what would a world without
Monsanto or Merck actually look like? Or: what would America look like
with an army dedicated only to defense of the nation?
Such a dialogue could lead to action. Many separate actions. What a thought. Would the world end? Would the sky fall?
You want more? Pay particular and close attention to this one. What
would happen, if one state in the union decided that anyone could offer
health advice and non-harmful, non-toxic treatment to another person,
for any ailment or illness, without control from above, without the need
for government licensing? Suppose this arrangement, between consenting
adults, was done by contract, not license? Suppose both parties
asserted that no liability or blame would be attached to the outcome of
such advice or treatment? In other words, God forbid, the citizens
would actually take responsibility for themselves. Do you think many
citizens and practitioners might flock to such a state? Do you think an
economic bonanza might explode in that state? Do you think the
outbreak of freedom might raise the morale in that area? Do you think
improved health might result? Do you think other states might follow
suit, merely by removing, at no cost, their grotesque rules and
licensing/enforcement bureaus? Would you be afraid of such an
arrangement, understanding the fact that current orthodox medicine, as
licensed and practiced throughout the land, results in widespread
pharmaceutical devastation? Shown a projection of the foreseeable
economic bonanza from the new arrangement I just outlined, do you think
there is at least one state in the US that might throw irrational
caution to the winds and enact this program of health freedom?
In the kind of extended dialogue I'm talking about here, individuals
come up with lots of interesting ideas---ideas that could very well lead
to action. And in the process, the nightmare zombie cloud of
government control and meddling takes major hits. All its operations
aimed at interfering with freedom are exposed. The crud washes off.
The unconscionable dreck drains away.
People start actually thinking again. They start imagining again. They
feel their chains slipping away. They come out of the collective
dream. They experience cascades of new energy. They think about
entrepreneurship in a new way. They think about morality and ethics in a
new way. They re-find themselves.
Does the sky fall? Does the world end?
No. It begins.
Perhaps (miracle of miracles) the quantity of self-invented victims
begins to diminish. Perhaps untold numbers of people floating along in a
New Age daze (because they see no way out of the dilemmas and conflicts
of our time) rise up from their plastic lotus pads, sensing a genuine
impulse of hope and desire for the first time in many years. Their own
hope. Their own desire. Perhaps millions of people trapped in dead-end
robotic work feel a creak in the psychological and spiritual machinery
that surrounds them, as it begins to malfunction and split apart.
Perhaps moon-blown, full-bore, doctrinal collectivist freaks feel a few
pin pricks in the purple bloated corpse of their one-size-fits-all
planetary vision.
Who knows what might happen if a true ongoing dialogue about a new economy persisted long enough?
If a person is dead inside and doesn't want to be dead inside, he has to
ask himself (paraphrasing Clint Eastwood) this question: Did he fire
six shots into his psyche or only five? If only five, can he fire that
last bullet into the passive trance that keeps him in thrall to Control
Central?
Waking up may be hard to do, but it's also contagious. If a college
dared to offer a four-year course which consisted entirely of the
dialogue/debate I'm proposing, carried out along respectful lines,
omitting and barring the screaming opponents of free speech, who knows
what might happen?
As William Blake wrote, "If the fool would persist in his folly he would
become wise." As the dialogue proceeds, all sorts of foolish ideas
would come to light and unravel, and turn into other ideas, and those
ideas would transmute into useful ideas, out of which would be born a
few brilliant ideas...and on it would go.
And the process itself would act as a catalyst for every person within
listening range. His own imagination would rev up. He would discover
his own future path.
Would that be a calamity? Would the sky fall? Would the world end?
Or would the dawn finally break?
No comments:
Post a Comment