By Giordano Bruno
Neithercorp Press - 08/03/2010
The average American has been carefully shielded from the horrors and heartbreaks of war. We watch it on CNN and FOX, we talk about it around the water cooler, we even send family members out to fight and to die, but in the end, few of us have personally dealt with the realities of hot conflict on our doorstep. Through the mainstream media, we have learned to “vacation” in the face of war. The grim uncertainty of the new day, the heightened threat of random and mindless destruction, the desperation of those in need and the distrust it breeds in society, these elements dominate the core life of a person beleaguered in a hostile environment. Most people, especially Americans, avoid considering such experiences at all cost. The MSM allows us to do this while at the same time making us feel as though we are still participants in the drama. We have forgotten what it is like to stare directly into the face of unadulterated brutality.
The recent and widely publicized exposure of over 90,000 Pentagon documents by web source ‘Wikileaks’ illustrates quite well how oblivious some portions of the public are to the fundamental costs of protracted war. The documents themselves revealed little that was not already well known by those of us in the Liberty Movement. Afghanistan was always a quagmire. Battlefront intel has been consistently negative month after month, and anyone who knows anything about guerilla warfare understands that the longer an occupying army takes to secure a piece of real estate the weaker they become, and the stronger the guerillas get. The U.S. has been struggling in Afghanistan for almost ten years to little effect, except to somehow increase the amount of heroin trafficking in the region by around 2000%. The last time I checked, that was not one of the stated goals of “Operation Enduring Freedom”.
Though the document leak did not produce any new data, it did force the general public to acknowledge all the information they had chosen to ignore over the past decade. When 90,000 secret government documents tell you the war effort is crumbling, it’s difficult to just shrug and go back to your vanilla latte. The fact that some people were shocked by the “revelations” of the leak shows how dangerously unaware many of our neighbors are, so dangerous in fact that they could be led to support yet another war without a second thought.
There are many possible conflicts brewing in the world today, but to escalate into full-blown siege, nearly all of them require average Americans to remain as dazed, uneducated, and emotionally unstable as they were back in 2001.
So far, we have been able to continue our relatively apathetic and uninformed stance towards conflicts overseas unimpeded. However, this is about to change. In the event that another war is opened on a third front, it is not a possibility but a certainty that America herself will be greatly affected. Our economy, our culture, our freedoms, our very infrastructure will come under serious threat. Listed below are eight reasons why…
The United States Is Penniless, Get Used To It…
I remember when I was growing up during the 1980’s, the great wave of corporatism in our culture and its effect on our general outlook. We all really did believe that the U.S. was the “richest” country in the world. We were invincible, and nothing would ever change. What we didn’t understand was that our nation was operating on borrowed money, and borrowed time.
Everyone and their uncle were suddenly thrown into a world of easy credit and ever growing government. Deficit spending in the past three decades has skyrocketed to levels never before imagined. The housing bubble was inflated during the 90’s to add even more fuel to the debt fire which was already underway, while our currency has plummeted in value relative to its purchasing power during the last depression. The bottom line: we created capital out of nothing so that we could keep our economy going for just a few more years. Now, we are paying the price.
The stock market tanked in 2008, of course, but what some people still don’t grasp is that that was just the beginning. Bailout liquidity injections from the private Federal Reserve along with artificially low interest rates have stalled the collapse, but it is now obvious to anyone following the markets objectively for the past few years that these bailouts have accomplished almost nothing for the long term. Stocks, GDP, and the dollar are now trending downwards at an exponential rate despite endless fiat infusions. The final string holding everything together, the decisive straw; the Treasury bond bubble, is on the verge of implosion. All this is boiling over as our country runs a $13 Trillion (official) national debt, over $1 Trillion of which we accrued through our wars in the Middle East. When I say that we as Americans cannot afford another war, I mean that we LITERALLY cannot afford another war! We are broke! We’re just too drunk on credit to see it!
Look at it this way; our very large government needs very large amounts of capital to function. Without this capital, entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare shut down, federal employees lose their jobs, and our military no longer has the funds to sustain itself in foreign conflicts. If we are trillions of dollars in debt already, and most if not all of our federal tax revenues go towards paying the interest on that debt (as discovered by the Grace Commission under Ronald Reagan), where is our government getting the money to continue operating? They are getting the money from two places; first, they are borrowing it, mainly from China, Russia, and Japan. Over the past two years, these countries have begun dumping their long term U.S. Treasuries and have switched to short term Treasuries. This occurs when other countries become doubtful that we will be able to pay back our debts in the longer term.
As countries begin to cut investment in our debt, the Federal Government loses substantial revenue. Their only other option is to PRINT the money they need out of thin air to continue supporting themselves. The reason they have been able to get away with this so far is because our dollar is the “world reserve currency”, and large percentages of what we print are being held in reserves in every nation on Earth. However, as we have talked about many times in the past, if the dollar loses its world reserve status all the greenbacks held overseas, all that money we printed out of thin air, will come rushing back into our economy, causing a devaluation of the dollar, and eventually, hyperinflation. Even if other countries do not immediately get rid of their dollar holdings, the process of losing world reserve status alone would destroy the value of our currency.
What does this have to do with war? The primary point is, our economy is on the edge of an abyss. Any new war would not only incur massive bills we cannot pay, it would also substantiate international investment concerns that the U.S. is a failing market with debts it will never balance. A costly new war would give other nations a perfectly good reason to cast off their Treasury holdings and move on to greener pastures. A new war would financially end us.
Can’t Get No Respect…
Because as a nation we have become so dependent on foreign money, this means by attrition we are also dependent on foreign “respect”. Americans don’t want to hear this kind of talk at all, but unfortunately, it’s another cold reality we will one day be forced to address. Anyone who thinks countries such as Russia or China can’t hurt us at least monetarily is blinded by a foolish sense of pride. Yes, we can indeed be severely damaged by the fiscal actions of foreign states. In fact, China has threatened that they have the ability to demolish our currency since at least 2007:
The consequences of this will become more and more evident as 2010 comes to a close. U.S. actions in foreign theatres are already attracting the ire of countries like China, and our own foreign policy must now take into account whether or not BRIC nations (to which we owe much money) will be “insulted”, and retaliate with financial measures that could destroy us. Arms shipments from the U.S. to Taiwan, or U.S. naval drills in the South China Sea, for instance, are drawing more and more political fire from China, along with more subtle threats. Imagine the response if we chose to initiate a shooting war in North Korea, which still has heavy ties to the CCP! Imagine if China chose to invade Taiwan, as it has been desperate to do for over 50 years! Would we respond to help them while China holds the future of our currency in their hands?
An action in North Korea would be especially destabilizing to the Pacific region, not to mention, accelerates the distinct possibility of a nuclear event. All of this places what semblance of economic foundation we have left directly under the international chopping block. By handing our fiscal fate over to countries that violently oppose our founding principles, we put ourselves at risk, but we also lost all respect. We made ourselves look weak. A new war at this juncture, while incredibly dim-witted for a number of reasons, would in addition leave us vulnerable to subversive financial actions by foreign powers that we could have avoided if we had kept a reasonable distance, remained solvent and independent, and preserved our ability to act in a sovereign fashion.
Hypocrisy Ends In Self Destruction
If you cannot sustain a clear moral high ground in a war, in the eyes of history you become the aggressor, and thus, the enemy of truth. In the past decade, our government has operated on the assumption that if they apply the “war on terror” label to any action, they will immediately be given the benefit of the doubt. Its possible that they will….
Perhaps you do not accept that Al-Qaeda is a CIA construct, or that 9/11 was obviously not engineered by men living in caves with the magical ability to collapse three buildings at near freefall speed with only two airplanes leaving a physically “unexplained” heat signature of 2800 F as reported by ground zero clean up crews and extensive scientific evidence of military-grade nanothermite. If that is the case, I really don’t have the space or the time in this article to convince you otherwise. However, I think it should be clear to anyone with any sense at all that the 9/11 attacks were certainly at least used in an opportunistic way to invade the Middle East on false pretenses.
The reason we went to war in Iraq was supposedly to prevent a WMD attack, specifically, a “mushroom cloud” event. Of course, after years of occupation and some estimates of over 1 million Iraqi deaths (as opposed to the very conservative government figures), the only WMD’s we have found are chemical weapons the Bush / Reagan Administration SOLD to Saddam Hussein during the 1980’s, back when he was willing to be used in a proxy war with Iran (*Note: we were also selling weapons to Iran. Go figure…). When it became evident to the public that there never was a threat from Iraq, establishment puppet George W. Bush then changed gears, claiming the goal of the war was now to “spread democracy”. Under new establishment puppet, Barack Obama, the rhetoric has changed slightly again, claiming that “we will leave soon, don’t worry…”
I sometimes feel sorry for those Americans who are so easily swindled by such talking points. I imagine they have been victims of numerous scams big and small since childhood. What terribly ineffective lives they must lead. The problem is that when people become this willfully ignorant, they overcompensate by developing massive egos. It often takes years if not decades for them to finally admit a mistake, even one that helped contribute to the deaths of over a million people. This emotionally stunted tendency in a considerable portion of citizens contributes to the making of progressively more tragic errors, until finally the society in question hits the proverbial ‘bottom’.
The building initiative for a preemptive strike against Iran is a perfect example of this repetitive blundering. Its root imbalance is one of hypocrisy.
An Iranian invasion would bring up many inconsistent views. The primary justification for such an attack is the unfounded assertion that Iran has nuclear arms, or is attempting to get them. This worked in duping the American public towards the invasion of Iraq, but would it work again? The point of debate has numerous holes:
First: we in the U.S. speak often of defending our national sovereignty, even most average neo-conservatives (who are not new, or conservative) become enraged at the idea of America losing its borders, its independence, its right to fully determine the course of its economy and its politics. Yet, some here in the States also believe we have the right to step on the sovereignty of other nations and dictate their foreign and domestic policies. When it comes down to it, what right do we really have to tell Iran or any other country that they cannot develop nuclear power, or even nuclear arms? How can we expect them to take our claims of sovereignty seriously when we refuse to respect anyone else’s? If another country suddenly demanded that we as Americans give up our nuclear power or nuclear arms, would we capitulate? Or, would we laugh in their face? Why should we expect anything less from another culture?
Second: the response to this very reasonable argument is usually the same; we can’t let Iran have nuclear power because they are a country of dangerous extremist fanatics. We are the “good guys” and thus deserve nuclear weapons. They are the “bad guys” and thus should be denied everything. According to this contention, we have the “right” to threaten the sovereignty of other nations based on idiotically broad generalizations. Even more hypocritical is the fact that we support and even supply the nuclear programs of governments such as Israel, which has its own sordid history of fanaticism, extremism, and terrorism (just look up the background of the ‘Irgun’ movement). Is a nuclear Iran really any more dangerous than a nuclear Israel? Or a nuclear United States? When was the last time Iran initiated a unilateral war based on faulty intelligence?
Third: another fear tactic is the implication that Iran could sell nuclear materials to terrorists or other dangerous nations. Ironically, it is our “infallible” ally Israel which is guilty of this crime. Recently, documents have been uncovered showing that Israel attempted to sell apartheid South Africa nuclear weapons in 1975:
Remember, under apartheid, South Africa was dominated by the ‘National Party’, whose ideology was not dissimilar to the Nazi Party! And yet, the Israeli Government still wanted to sell them nukes!? Can you get more reckless and fanatical than that? Once again, we hypocritically support a country with the same dangerous policies we openly admonish.
Fourth: Michael Hayden, former CIA director under the Bush administration, recently stated that an attack on Iran is “inexorable”, and that even if Iran builds Nuclear Power facilities utilizing sub-grade radioactive material unusable in weaponry as they have promised, they must still be dealt with severely. That is to say, we WILL invade Iran if they build a nuclear power plant. Whether or not they get anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon is apparently meaningless.
I’m very curious as to why we are so violently opposed to Iran having nuclear power now, even though we supported the idea of them having Nuclear power back in the 1970’s:What changed our minds? Well, the Shah was a puppet leader the West used to overthrow the once democratic government of Iran, an insane tyrant which common Iranians eventually (and rightly) revolted against. This is not to say that the current government of Iran is not guilty of its own terrible deeds. However, with these facts in mind, it is obvious that the elites in our government are perfectly willing to allow despotic extremist leaders to have access to nuclear technology, as long as they are under our thumb. Again, this is nightmarish hypocrisy.
If the U.S. continues on this duplicitous path, the false logic and irrational inhumanity it breeds will grow like a cancer. Nations that refuse to clearly define their principles and actually follow them honorably invariably turn in on themselves. If a culture does not act according to its stated morals when dealing with others, how can it uphold those morals within its own borders?
War Has A Purpose, And Its Called “Globalism”
I often hear that war is “mass insanity”, that it serves no purpose and should be attributed to the sometimes uncontrollable hysteria of mankind. This is essentially a rationalization used to explain away these gruesome chapters of previous times as some kind of “freak occurrence” or a random symptom of our “violent nature”. Being a student of history and especially war, I couldn’t disagree more with this interpretation. Most war is NOT random, or mindless. In fact, most wars serve a very specific purpose and begin with a carefully crafted goal in mind. The question few people in the past have had the brains to ask is; whose purpose do these wars serve? Who truly gained from the conflict?
Ideologues, especially today, love to view modern war as some extension of territoriality. An endless struggle over borders, egos, and resources. They have disregarded the fact that in every war of at least the past century there has always been a beneficiary group, an elite few whose philosophy of centralization and globalism profits while the rest of the world suffers. After every great war, what solution is always presented as a means to ensure such catastrophe “never happens again”? Less sovereignty and more centralization of world power. During every conflict, what is always offered as a solution for civilian safety? Bigger government and less personal liberty.
Constant war (with the exception of individualist inspired revolution) has the ability to push even the most conservative societies towards fear based collectivism. This is the true purpose of most wars of the past 100 years. The more we as a people tolerate the imposition of war by elites, the closer we get to blindly sacrificing our country as we know it. Whenever a war is suggested, engineered, or implemented, always ask yourself; who really benefits?
Carpet Bombing Civilians Prevents Terrorism…?
I’m not a Muslim, and I am sure there are plenty of social intricacies I do not yet understand, but I suspect that having your family maimed or killed by cluster bombs and drone rockets probably creates a feeling of rage we can all relate to, regardless of where on this planet we are born. The idea that conventional invasion and occupation of nations prevents radicalization is perplexing to me, especially now that I understand the stark reality that most terrorism is committed by governments, not extremists, often against their own people.
A logical man would come to the conclusion that to stop terrorist acts, we must first stop governments from funding, training, and supporting the groups that commit these acts. We must remove the incentive that entices governments to use these acts to their advantage. We must remove globalists from the picture entirely. But let’s forget logic for a moment…
In the world of the propagandized American, tanks rolling over foreigners, this is what wins the day. The result of this methodology is truly ingenious, at least, in the manner in which it benefits globalists. False flag attacks are created to trigger war. War is then used to perpetuate desperation and radicalization, which then leads eventually to further attacks. The process could go on for eternity!
The Wikileaks event we just witnessed subtly implies such a process. Those who have looked into the leak know that some of the documents it contained accuse the government of Pakistan and the ISI of not only being complicit in Taliban activities, but also supporting them financially and logistically. It is possible that this is in part true, and the motive for this kind of activity exists. The U.S. has invaded Pakistani airspace in numerous instances, launched attacks, and killed civilians while doing so. It is believable that our actions have inspired Pakistanis to support those we call “terrorists”.
It is also possible that these leaked documents are part of a disinformation campaign meant to lead the American people towards the above conclusion. Our incursions in Pakistani territory could illicit real terrorist acts here at home, or, the Pakistani people could be used as another scapegoat for anther false flag. Either way, our presence attracts more disaster, and even more war. The fact that Pakistan is a nuclear armed country should concern every American. They are the perfect patsy for a radiological attack on U.S. soil.
Draft Cards Will Be Fireproofed…
The U.S. military is spread thin. It has been for years. While the economic downturn has boosted recruitment numbers for the past couple years, this has not been enough to solidify any kind of advantage in the Middle East. A war on a third front is nearly impossible to execute with our current forces, especially in mountainous regions such as Iran or Pakistan. The promise of further carnage would definitely bring down our economy, and through that, it could provide more recruits franticly searching for a decent wage, but I suspect even this would not be enough to fill the ranks. The greater the chance of horrible death, the less inclined people will be to voluntarily join. In the event of a new war, expect the proposition of an enhanced draft, one that is difficult to run away from.
Charles Rangel, the posterboy for political debauchery, reintroduced his compulsory military draft bill H.R. 5741 last month:
Though Rangel’s bill predates Obama, it is now being introduced as part of the Obama “Mandatory Service” initiative. This initiative requires every American to enter into the uniformed services or some other civilian outfit in support of Homeland Security. They do not use the word “draft”, but that’s exactly what it is. I doubt that it is coincidence that Rangel reintroduced this bill despite the investigations into his extensive dirty dealings. Does the establishment already have a conflict on the back-burner which will require the quick passage of Rangel’s bill? Probably.
Make A Run ‘From’ The Border
I don’t have the space in this article to cover the entire U.S. / Mexico border issue. Needless to say, the border is not secure. Do some Mexican nationals come over the border in the hopes of a better life? Sure. Is this irrelevant? Yes. The issue is not one of compassion, and certainly not one of race. The issue is one of common sense. The U.S., like any other country, has legal standards for immigration for many reasons. Partly economic, partly academic, partly social, partly for security. No other country in the world that I can think of is attacked for wanting to secure its borders like the U.S. is attacked. It’s become an international hot topic! Everybody who doesn’t live here seems to have an opinion, especially Mexico!
Why does the Federal Government want to keep the borders liquid? Why does the Mexican government want to sue Arizona for attempting to secure theirs? Again, think “globalism”. The more vaporous our borders become, the more psychologically detached we become from their existence, as well as the cultural ideals they are supposed to enclose and protect. Open borders are good for globalists.
Now, imagine that a war is triggered south of that border, while it remains open. Could a mass migration of refugees fleeing for their lives flood into this country? Easily.
Venezuela has been a thorn in the side of the globalists for a long time. Though Chavez is another one of those leaders that is impossible to like, he doesn’t seem to play the elitist’s game. This makes his country a possible target for subversion, destabilization, and even war.
The U.S. has been a major supporter of the Columbian government, even though Columbia’s military is closely tied to extremist paramilitary groups that terrorize the citizenry, also known as “death squads”. Columbia and the U.S. have attempted to justify these unsavory groups by claiming that Venezuela harbors a rebel organization called FARC hostile to the Columbian government. For years the tension has been relatively contained, but lately tempers have begun to flare. Chavez has threatened to cut off his supply of oil to the U.S. in the event the Columbia accelerates aggressions:
Accusations have been made that Venezuela along with FARC are working with Al-Qaeda in an “unholy alliance” to supplant Western interests, though little if any concrete evidence has been provided to support this:
The point is, the elements exist for our government to initiate a proxy war against Venezuela through Columbia causing the complete deterioration of South and Central America. This could result in an even greater influx of illegal immigrants into the United States. Any American who believes in border security should be wary of saber rattling against Venezuela.
War Turns Harmless Idiots Into Monsters
Finally, we get to the most frightening consequence that a new war could unleash. When a society goes to war, a real war that actually threatens the survival of that society, the unintelligent become terrified, and the terrified become bizarre. People who you once deemed rather stupid but harmless suddenly start watching you, listening to your comments, and blowing things out of all proportion. They begin to see terrorists and enemy agents everywhere. Al-Qaeda could be white! Hell, Al-Qaeda could be technicolored and hiding bombs in your dishwasher. Anything could go wrong, they think, and so they must be suspicious of everything and everyone.
We all know where this leads. People like myself, who question the status quo and place blame where it is deserved, usually on government or corporate elitists, will be labeled subversive, dangerous, even traitorous. During a major war, you are supposed to tow the establishment line, not rock the boat. National Security becomes the excuse for everything, including silencing dissenters. I have no doubt whatsoever that if another war is sparked, federal actions will be taken to curtail Constitutional freedoms in an acute manner. I also fear that if we are not successful in waking up enough of our family and friends to this scenario, they will develop into a serious part of the problem. The most successful tyrannies rely less on Gestapo, and more on the citizens themselves. The most insidious censorship of all is self-censorship; the silence of men who fear the prying ears of their neighbors.
A major war can also breed a perpetual sense of tunnel vision, a feeling of urgency that drives us to act wildly despite our consciences. This is when the darker impulses of human beings take hold. The worst crimes of all time have been facilitated and perpetrated by common people in the midst of the zealotry of empty elitist conflict. Governments can force the issue of war. They can launch military forces without warning. They can create false flag attacks as a pretense for invasion. They can cajole other nations into their own assaults. It is difficult to prevent these things. But one measure we can take is to deny them the ability to frighten us into submission. We can band together and show that we do not condone war based on the whims of globalist minorities. We can solidify our defiance, make citizen censorship ineffective, and refuse to participate in the lie. We cannot allow yet another unlawful and dishonorable war to be waged in our name. Otherwise, we have learned nothing.
You can contact Giordano Bruno at: email@example.com