http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/11497-the-nato-un-army-perpetual-war-and-bankruptcy-for-us
The other day Mark Levin was directing criticism at a “Conservative” who may not be reliably “for war”, now making Conservative mean that you blindly support all aggressive use of military force, believe that you are right because God is on your side, that a college education is a waste of resources and that you’re being taxed too much even if you pay no taxes.
Which is more problematic? People who are advancing Global government through artificial financial panics and inciting military aggression based on what a country might do in the future? Or the well intentioned people who rallied behind Barack Obama’s opposition to war and use of force and now stand by silently?
If this isn’t rhetorical – the answer is both are problematic.
Blindly fomenting aggression based on some erstwhile future global situation is problematic as it wastes lives and wealth and makes huge assumptions on outcomes that have constantly proven to be wrong in history – thus all the precious blood, sweat and tears are for naught.
The silent support of peace at all costs allows the evil megalomaniacs in the world to suppress freedom, kill and torture people, steal property commodities and other valuables from their own people and neighbors without consequence.
I am sure you weren’t looking for a “right” answer – there isn’t one. If you don’t like Mark Levin – you are not alone.
I’m all out of answers.
I probably should have pointed out this is the web site of the “Right Wing” John Birch Society 🙂
A question I’ve asked myself a few times is… do my opinions about the recent military adventurism of the United States stand on their own, or is it only because Barack Obama is President?
This article could article could have been written by the Christian Science Monitor. If Romney wins, will the John Birch people suddenly revert to wanting to give the US Military unlimited funding to resume killing Commies for God?
Boy did I get that wrong!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TafAAqOY574
Back around 1972, I somehow got invited to a meeting of the local John Birch Society (I was in high school) and saw a film of this stuff. While that was the only contact I had with them, what I saw that evening was locked away in my mind for safe keeping. It looks like my memory was not as accurate as I hoped.
I am reading Martin van Creveld’s book, “The Rise and Decline of the State”.
He describes the “Nation State”, its origin, and history.
The Nation State didn’t exist prior to the 18th century. Earlier forms of government were essentially tribal in nature (very broadly defined); religious, ideological, family, military, etc.
The Nation State began as a government enforcing a relatively small set of laws. The US government was one of the first Nation States. Over some 250 years the Nation State has been evolving. Initially, the purpose of the Nation State was to “… protect the political, military, economic, social, and cultural lives of their citizens …”.Next in the evolution of the Nation State was … “the separation of the [Nation] State from civil society and the creation of many of its most characteristic institutions; including its bureaucracy, its statistical infrastructure, its armed forces, its police apparatus, and its prisons …”. The next evolutionary step involved the Nation State realizing how powerful it had become, and it “… transformed [itself] from [an] instrument for imposing law and order, [to one populated by] secular gods [imposing arbitrary edicts]; and how, having increased [the Nation State’s] strength out of all proportion, by invading their citizens’ minds and systematically picking their pockets …” [the Nation State thereby promoted its continued growth]. This evolutionary sequence next led to the Nation State using [its] size and strength “… to fight other [Nation States] on such a scale, and with such murderous intensity , as almost to put an end to themselves.” [WWI and WWII].
Most of us mentally retain the image of the original purpose of our government, and we use that image to form our expectations and interpretations of the current government [which is actually an evolved Nation State] and its actions. But, our expectations and interpretations are inconsistent with the government’s actual current form as an evolved Nation State, and inconsistent with our actual obligations to that Nation State (to fund the Nation States’ activities and to be submissive to its authority). We still imagine the government, as defined in our founding documents, still exists, or at least should still exist. These inconsistencies are what produce our puzzlement about what our government (which is actually a largely unaccountable Nation State) is doing, and why it is doing it.
The author characterizes the evolved Nation State as equivalent to an international corporation. The Nation State is only recognized by other Nation States, and is accountable only to other Nation States. The movement toward global government is therefore a movement to form a corporation of Nation States, thereby creating a Global State (which we will be expected to serve).
I haven’t finished the book yet, but it seems the information in the book is going to enable a better understanding of the reasons for the Nation States pursuit of “perpetual war”, combined with an understanding of the Nation States need to delude and passify its citizens about its true purpose (which it has done primarily by administrating welfare functions), will explain why we are soon going to experience the financial implosion of the Nation State.
The author argues that the Nation State peaked during WWII, and its functions have been gradually being replaced by smaller autonomous organizations (for instance, terrorists competing against the Nation States’ standing armies).
If (when) the Nation States implode they will be replaced by something, but whether that something will be an improvement is unknown. Such a transition will likely not be pleasant.
This sounds like a very interesting book. I understand Glenn Beck’s desire to hang on to a 2000 real old religious story and the ideas of the people that founded this government a bit over 200 years ago, but neither is adequate to chart a course forward.
A couple incomplete observations – to governments, humans are a crop, just as a farmer raises chickens. In a fairly odd circumstance, I spent a day with a guy in Washington DC who worked for the World Bank. He was tasked with taking software that was designed for an IBM mainframe and making it work on an IBM/PC which could be used in environments that were not particularly computer friendly. This was about 1985ish – my memory is he was from Brazil.
You can’t just have humans running around in the Amazon rain forest like animals! The first step is you need a census (the purpose of this software). Once you have a count of all the chickens…. errr humans, then you can tax them. But you say, how will they pay the tax? Well, they have to pay in the government printed money of course. But how do they get government printed money as hunter gatherers living in a forest? That can’t – those tax cheats! They must be rounded up and taken to the city and civilized and trained to work in factories, etc…
The second general observation about governments is the question I half asked maybe two weeks ago – if religion isn’t the source of defining right and wrong, what is “morality” and who decides it and how?
Lawyers have a very clear answer to that (and it’s wrong) – that what is moral is that which complies with the law. It doesn’t take a lot of digging into history to find examples where governments created laws that were highly immoral in retrospect. So laws are created by government – is it enough that if a majority of a population say “This is moral and that is immoral”, the will of the people decides right from wrong? As someone will quickly point out, the United States is not a Democracy, it’s a Republic with leaders chosen by the people for their merit as representatives of the people. Or is morality defined by economic power – “he who has the gold makes the rules”?
Or is Rush right that “Ours is a world governed by the aggressive use of force.” – that in the end it isn’t about right and wrong, but about weak and strong? That matches up with my college history course that had the main point of “It’s the people who win the wars that write the history”. World War II and what we did was moral because we won.
“The Nation State didn’t exist prior to the 18th century.”
I would have to politely argue that assessment as being historically parochial. It seems to me that the Roman Empire qualified as a “Nation State”, as did the Greeks under Alexander. As did the Chinese when they were busy building the great wall. If Germany, Imperial Japan, and the British Empire meet the definition of nation states in the 20th Century, certainly the Roman Empire did also 1800 years prior.
The educational short film clip below explains U.S. Foreign Policy from WWII to the present. 🙂
“Dr. Strangelove – Precious Bodily Fluids”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY
I worded the description of a “Nation State” carefully. The important distinction, relative to earlier “nations” or “states”, was”
…”.Next in the evolution of the Nation State was … “the separation of the Nation State from civil society and the creation of many of its most characteristic institutions; including its bureaucracy, its statistical infrastructure, its armed forces, its police apparatus, and its prisons …”. The next evolutionary step involved the Nation State realizing how powerful it had become, and transforming itself from an instrument for imposing law and order, to one populated by secular gods who impose arbitrary edicts; and how, having increased the Nation State’s strength out of all proportion, by invading their citizens’ minds and systematically picking their pockets, the Nation State thereby promoted its continued growth.
The Nation State, as defined by Creveld, is far more than the nations or states we have known historically. For instance, our Nation State successfully confiscates over 50% of the wealth created, has the power to enforce that degree of confiscation, and it largely does whatever it wants to do with that confiscated wealth, without accountability.
The most important difference between nations and states historically, and the Nation State, is the “separation of the Nation State from civil society”. You have to reflect on this difference, because we typically don’t think of our government (actually a Nation State) as being separate from the civil society we live in. The government actually lives by its own rules, and those rules are not the rules we citizens choose to, or are forced to, live by.
Admittedly, some citizens currently are trying to rein in our Nation State, and force it to conform to the principles outlined in the constitution and bill of rights. But, the shear size of the Nation State is what makes the Nation State into what it has become. Therefore, without reducing the Nation State to about 1/10 of its current size (confiscating only 5% of the national wealth created), and forcing it to focus its activities almost exclusively on nation defense and a justice system, the reform effort will fail to change the nature of our Nation State.
I certainly admit that I too thought of our government as being just a variation on historical nations and states, but that is simply not true. The Nation State has powers that dwarf the power available to prior nations and states. The Nation State, as a result of its size (combined with the effects of human nature) has become something humans haven’t known historically.
If you start thinking about our Nation State as an unaccountable corporation, that is separate from civil society, is very powerful, and doesn’t care much about what the citizens want, then a lot of what we see happening becomes understandable.
Diane Feinstein – on behalf of the fake “Humane” group and the megaconglomerates of egg producers (United Egg Producers) want to impose national standards on how eggs are produced.
http://www.perishablenews.com/index.php?article=0022505
California has imposed strict new standards on egg production – but that Constitution thing in Article 1, Section 9 generally says that States can’t tax or prevent the products from other States being imported into their state – so as the costs of California produced “compliant” eggs soar, the “black market” takes over – people growing eggs in their back yards, people shuffling paperwork to disguise the origin, finding ways to evade the intent (are powdered eggs covered? What about eggs used in making other products, etc…)
So in the Socialist/Communist view of the world, you can’t achieve your goals until you impose your rule over the entire world.. so to prevent “rogue states” from creating illegal eggs, you need Federal Egg Standards that apply to all eggs, even if the eggs are produced and consumed in the same state and none were ever headed to California.
The “big lie” is that it’s Congress that runs in the Nation State. Non-Governmental Organizations are increasingly where this centralized control of our lives is coming from (and happening now on the global level more and more) – entities that have no direct accountability to anyone other than to increasing their own power. When it becomes necessary for enforcement by the government with the guns and the prisons, the NGOs write the laws, hand them to the elected representatives whose palms have been sufficiently greased, and that’s that.
The Communications Act of 1934 that established the FCC is a very good example of this – how the NAB wrote its own rules in order to exclude other market participants and lock in its monopoly in perpetuity.
The human path is full of oddities. I can recall attempting to galvanize the sales and marketing team at one company to anticipate and prepare for ‘Fortress Europe’ … and here we are.
The State will continue to grow to implosion – its agents are using all forms of subterfuges to accomplish those ends: on so many levels from civil forfeiture to instructing a bastardized media to simply ignore wide swaths of evidence of its own growth. Cycles.
Good Men can reasonably deduce that cash will be eliminated in an attempt to harness the underground economy. All transactions will be monitored and taxed electronically. The responsive step by 8% – 12% who reject the new social contract would be internal exile & bartering or traditional exile. The state department began this month to limit traditional exile.
Barter will emerge. The self perpetuating ‘professions’ which are parasitic agents of the State lawyers (purchasing a JD is a major investment) and many of the financial can’t survive in barter. Barter would only be necessary until the State eliminates the new freedom colonists or the State implodes. By the way, the State has a bounty program for accountants to rat out their customers – another way to beat down those uppity wealth creators.
Wise Men I believe have to determine what level of inalienable rights they are willing to ignore for themselves and still choose to remain a part of the Federally controlled existence. Some problems are best handled with swift decisive measures: avoiding an invasion of the main Japanese Islands. Other problems require planning, stealth and subterfuge. If it is at all possible to throw down and break apart this federal tyranny then patience and planning are key elements.
At some point each man on his own and in his own time must decide: Is the State now evil and alien to God? Does the State advance towards the exceptional American ideal and give each individual the opportunity to raise his own spirit, build his own future and enjoy the rewards of personal responsibility. Or, has the State become the oppressor – using multiple levels of government, NGO whores and front organizations to inflict itself into every crevice of citizens lives?
If only Nixon could have opened China, could only Obama wed us fascism?
Art,
Thanks for the BLOG. I don’t always sign-in but I enjoy reading the views of the ones who post.
Upon thinking about it some more, I think it was actually Mark Davis who set me off – he was hosting for Rush Limbaugh one day (he’s currently unemployed having decided that he and Cumulus Radio can’t come to agreeable terms).