Home | About | Donate

Is This War World III?


Is This War World III?

Thea Paneth

There are 60 million refugees in the world, the same number as were refugees at the end of WW II.

On October 31 in an unprecedented joint warning, the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Peter Maurer, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross called for "states to stop conflicts, respect international law and aid refugees." Criticizing the global response to the refugee crisis, Ban Ki-moon said, "In the face of blatant inhumanity, the world has responded with disturbing paralysis."


The joint statement by the leaders of the UN and the International Red Cross should have been picked up by all major news outlets - and it was not! What a disgusting, disappointing reaction. There could have been urgent calls for an immediate conference of world leaders to address this current crisis and start thinking and talking about possible solutions. Instead they are discussing how and where to drop more bombs and put more boots n the ground ... insanity personified!


I would submit that yes, this is WWIII and fomented by the same ideological mind traps under which the legacy beneficiaries of the previous two WWs remain self-seiged.Some of the differences being:
- The technological capacity to assert hyperbolic feedback loops, based on the 'royal' hierarchic model of falsification for a class, not nation or place - much less the integrity of any and all that is 'externalized' by the model, constantly chopping away for 'full spectrum dominance'.
- The conflation of the economics, inherent in the model, with no previous experience of true conceptual integrity in any of the areas in which it is active. That is to say, we are witnessing nearly full delf-referentiality of entire VOIDS inherent in the model (dehumanization, exclusion of entire aspects of 'nature' and our relationship with her, for example)
- That two previous observations are also active with a scale of 'ballast' arising from the entrainment of vast sectors of human society operationalized by distortions arising from the model being imposed on education, agriculture and other human and natural activity.

It is a war in which the most insidious weapon is the historical aggregate invisibility of all of the above - except for the consequences, which are then manipulated to leverage intensification again based on a fast imploding premise that it is possible to claim that life is not based on the spectrum of elements the model claims to not be of value.

Our challenge, it seems to me, is for human society to become highly skilled in shedding the egocentric cultural strictures by which one falls into being a mutually exclusionary actor as well as being excluded from healthy societal existance. This is changing. Fortunately the ironic turning entailed in this precisely reflects the spectrum of boons denied by the model. It would seem that if ever there were a 'good fight' to fight, this is it.


On the road to war... nobody ever asks directions. The question as to whether there will be war depends on who is behind the wheel.

All nations will go to war when attacked but who decides to attack another country? The governing or ruling elites of one country decide that the soldiers and civilians of both countries should begin to die in a war.

Oddly enough, democracies do not vote to go to war. Their Congresses, Parliaments and rulers decide to go to war and often their citizens are asked to support a war once it has already begun. Almost like an investment for the future but paid by the blood and lives of those already engaged in fighting. Our sailors died on the ship that was attacked and sunk! Our soldiers died defending our borders! Or even that our civilians were on the plane that was downed. A little blood and death goes a long way when those in government want to go to war anyway. A single incident, a border clash or even an accidental faux provocation like a downed plane can end up having caused the loss of millions of lives before the war is over years later.

Democracies do not vote for war. No one puts it to the citizens who will fight and die whether they wish to have a war. Kings and dictators decide to go to war but only a ruling elite will vote for one.

Enter the manufactured incident that is used to justify a vote for war and which provides a 'moral' excuse to begin the inescapable carnage. Enter the constant prodding and urging of citizens to think war is understandable. Netanyahu's projected hatred towards a confined people under occupation is not moral but it does provoke many Israelis - soldiers and settlers - to excess. It also eggs on the citizenry to make excuses for a steady state injustice... which of course produces hatred in return.

But there are other roads to war. Big wars. Big wars take time and long gestation periods. How do you know? Like a pregnancy... it shows.

People seem so very disturbed by the head butting in the Ukraine but when you look you have to wonder is she pregnant or what because it doesn't show. That potential war may not be using birth control but she sure doesn't look pregnant yet. Massed armies on the borders? Not yet.

Syria is trickier. People are dying and factions provoke greater responses trying to keep things going in case a potential for peace breaks out... but still that is all a current conflict extension of a planned destabilization of the general area. There may be no peace in the Middle East but no one wants to see it become a world war. The day in and day out endless war scenario is a steady state destabilization which never quite ignites a world war but keeps things smoldering just the same.

And then along comes that road sign pointing to a future big war - a potential world war although not expected just right now but there for those who go down that road. The chess piece moves of escalation by a new empire come into contact with the previously placed pieces by an entrenched empire. The projected sphere of influence of a new empire confronts the assumed sphere of influence of an existing empire.

A new power tests an old power... but not just yet.

People should ask just what will be the end result of China's expansionist moves in the South China Sea. Where will this all end down the road? Ukraine already had borders and negotiations can be held etc. There is a solution to be reached. Syria also has a preexisting 'Syria" that holds a potential diplomatic solution or in this case a diplomatic chaos (more endless war or a proxy war or even a musical chairs changing alliances game of death and suffering played out as war).

But what is the end game solution for the South China Sea?

The world is destabilizing and amid immense and unexpected environmental changes and increasing climate based economic stresses... ruling elites begin strategizing for a big war. Not for now but for later. Either China keeps her conquest - one that gives her dominant control of the South China Sea for a long time to come or she doesn't get it.

I find it hard to believe that China will give up her bloodless conquest of a place that she has been creating that is worth fighting a war over and from as well. A military base for naval and air power is being constructed in the South China Sea and while it may not look like much and there are no factions fighting or refugees involved... even a single tiny match can start a huge fire.

The world should discuss this issue rather than warships and fighter jets strutting their stuff. The issue is will China have the right to claim territorial waters hundreds of miles from the mainland and strategic control of the South China Sea?

Ironically... this is a type of reverse containment. An expansionist acquisition that significantly changes the map. The conflicts in Syria and Ukraine do not. Well not really... Russia had already reclaimed the Crimea last year and nobody seemed all that surprised at it since It was mostly a technicality on paper anyway.

The South China Sea issue is very much like ... being only a little bit pregnant.


The seeds of war flourish in the dank medium of corruption and poverty. The ghouls, enriched by their bloody harvest, supply all sides with instruments of death. War: too big to fail. Alas.


If there is a third world war it will be like MLK said in 1967, by the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world". The Amerikan world wide Empire, is the most dangerous empire and the most violent empire in the world. And the fact that the US dropped two atom bombs, one on Hiroshima and one on Nagasaki, tells me the US would have no reticence about using them again; especially so, if the empire felt sufficiently that their oligarchical hubris and world wide hegemony were being threatened.


Herr Goering and Herr Goebbels said the same thing, perhaps a bit more briefly in the 1930s-'40s.
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same for any country."
* Herman Goering to Gustave Gilbert at Nuremberg, 18 April, 1946
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
* “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”
* “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”
Joseph Goebbels, MiniProp for Hitler’s Third Reich
* Santayana was quite correct, and so we are.


More briefly............................!
'I heard that!' Lol.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


When I think of On the Beach, I remember the last scene in downtown Sidney.
* Nothing moving except windblown leaves and papers and the tattered Salvation Army banner which says, "There is still time, brother."
* Is there?


Sometimes it seems to me as if humankind is so fearful that they reach for the war guns because organizing for war seems to them like it's taking decisive action. It feels as if the whole of civilization is coming unglued, disassembling at a truly alarming rate. The only visible course of action that the elites in positions of political leadership can imagine is to declare that enemies are to blame and taking up arms to take them out will, in their delusional view, will solve the problems.

The world is teetering on the edge of setting off all the launch on warning currently being upgraded weapons of mass destruction, and to go down that ever steepening slippery slope and delivering, surprise, mass destruction.

A lot of people believe that there's still time to at least partially reverse the worst excesses of environmental trashing and survive the myriad of ill effects. But if war happens, there won't be time to cut back emissions and revise the economics of inequality and devise ways to grow food enough to feed the world without added chemicals or genetic modifications.

Unfortunately, the elite leadership listens to calls from the public to back off and find other ways on the subject of military action even less than they listen to the public on other issues.


The above partial quote reminds me of the following quote:

“Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder… And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.”
– Eugene Debs | Socialist Party of America


Senator Lindsy Graham the other day advocating WW3.


It's scary to think these are the people we have in Washington that are suppose to be looking out for are best interest. Instead they are leading us on a collision course to WW3. When will
the American people wake up before it's to late.


I don't find this piece very insightful. At this point, it's purely just semantics. So what, what if we established some criteria and figured out that WW3 is actually happening? Does what we call it really change anything?