Home | About | Donate

The United States Is First in War, But Trailing in Crucial Aspects of Modern Civilization


The United States Is First in War, But Trailing in Crucial Aspects of Modern Civilization

Lawrence Wittner


In many respects militarization is quite similar to religious fervor.

It isn’t truly rational, or logical, but has many elements of a larger greatness in which to believe.

And it is unquestioning, never to be challenged, due to its claimed absolute rightness.

It is replete with iconography, facilitating reinforced awe, dedication and devotion.

As with other religious convictions, it is embraced to the death.


America has been at war 222 out of 239 years since 1776. Let that sink in a minute. That’s almost 93% of the years in our history going back to 1776. It doesn’t include the wars before that, or the other atrocious acts like genocide against natives, enslavement of blacks, indentured servitude, enslavement of immigrant children, use of nuclear weapons on our own people in Nevada, etc. etc. etc.



Great article! Concise and documented. How can something like this get out to the public that needs to know it?


The Duopoly breeds Militancy.

Don’t buy into it’s Bullshit loyalty for even one moment, let alone, for life.

There’s enough Zombies, on the TV.


You can distribute it to everyone you know, as can all of us. I’ve already started.

Also, I would suggest this be sent to every Democrat, especially the Blue Wavers and “progressives” who are unable to understand that there will be no domestic progress without a relatively rapid build-down of the U.S.-lead global imperial military project.

Simply put in mathematical terms: Global Militarism = Domestic Austerity.


Wittner sez:
“The Social Progress Index … 2018 report concluded that that the United States ranked 63rd in primary school enrollment, 61st in secondary school enrollment, 76th in access to quality education, 40th in child mortality rate, 62nd in maternity mortality rate, 36th in access to essential health services, 74th in access to quality healthcare, and 35th in life expectancy at age 60.”

Ah. But where did it rank in extracting privatized profits from same?


US Militancy and Militarism , along with its historical record of forcing VIOLENCE on other nations and peoples in order to advance US interests is linked directly to the belief that they are the worlds one indispensiable nation and the fiction advanced that they are the “Shining City on the hill”.

The oldgoat linked the other day to an article on narcissim and how it leads to anti-social behaviour. If you read that it suggested that this condition both Genetic and environmental. In other words linked to the belief systems adopted by a group. Continue to tell someone they are better then anyone else and they will act that out and they will became anti-social. That anti-social behaviour is reflected not only in the wars the US wages and the amount it spends on its arms, but in the way SOCIAL spending and programs intended to help others are so lacking.

The first step in wanting a more caring and compassionate society is caring about others rather then caring only about “self interest”.


While the premise of this article is unassailable, I take issue with one of the statistics given regarding the percentage of people who live in poverty. The article claims that the US has a higher rate of poverty than countries like Brazil and Sri Lanka. The link takes you to the results of the survey, which makes it clear that each country has its own standard for defining poverty, and that more developed countries have a more generous standard for defining poverty. I beg the author to stop relying on misleading claims like this. The real statistics are enough to back up his argument.


The willful and ongoing conflation of the military with pro sports has a lot to do with our acceptance.


I have posted before about how the agriculture programs in our universities are compromised by the petrochemical industries, funding the programs to require that their science is taught, keeping farmers hooked on their products.
Now we have proof this is happening in mainstream academia.



Being first implies winning. The only people in the US who’ve won post WWII are the fking War Profiteers, those in and out of our government.


The process of the MIC actually began in Roman times. The Free Masons of today are part of the cabal that it has morphed into. A partner in the beginning was religion.
Oh, and surprise, it was about wealth and conquer.


The educational attainments among many other Americans are also dismal. An estimated 30 million adult Americans cannot read, write, or do basic math above a third grade level.

And, functionally, this includes Trump. The education president, he is not.

As for America being first in war and military spending, I am amazed at how many progressives still think they can compartmentalize domestic policy and foreign policy and insist the two can be treated, separately. There can be no room for war in any progressive candidate’s agenda or platform. It is the most flagrant and heinous of contradictions. It is the ultimate litmus test for anyone claiming to be progressive. This article should be required reading.


Which Progressives do that? I’ve never seen a progressive who was pro war. I’ve seen almost all of the democrats do it, but they are right wing neoliberal globlists, they don’t call themselves progressive, and ultimately have the same agenda as the Republicans - certainly not a drop of progressive blood there. There are only a few rare exceptions, i.e. Cortez, Sanders, Kusinich, but its only around 1% or 5% of the democrats at the most. Those actual progressives are opposed to imperialism and oligarchy. Are you referring to the citizenry? After 55 years I’ve only met a handful of progressive Americans and not one of them would side with war for anything other than National defense, if even that. If a Progressives existence is threatened, or they come under attack, most of them draw the line at asking the perpetraitor nicely to stop, or chanting while carrying a sign.


Excellent comment!!!


Freemasons Started out in France if I remember right. At the time there were many guilds controlling what sort of wages anyone might receive for any given profession. The freemason was literally a mason, the type who carved soft stone like marble into intricate shapes and statues. When the churches built massive chapels everywhere the freemasons organized, into perhaps the first labor union, and agreed not to help build the chapels unless they could obtain a high wage. Because this was illegal, their meetings were in secret. Due to the number of chapels being constructed, and the level and skill and specialization of their trade, and the absence of any alternative except not building the chapels, churches submitted and Freemasons made huge money. There was no line between church and government then, and the isolation of Freemasons from the church meant that they soon embraced members of different religions as well. The secrecy stuck with Freemasons over the years.This successful union spread to England, across Europe, and to America too, and the varied religious beliefs of Freemasons were etched into stone in chapels in Europe, and even reflected here such as on the dollar bill. Now, only one of many such secret society’s, Freemasons are merely people who privately organize in government and industry to secure fiscal and political advantage for themselves. Some other societies eventually included the Bilderberg’s, The trilateral commission, The council on foreign affairs, skull and bones, etc etc. Basically a fraternity who has private membership, and works often enough outside of the law and often within the government itself. Today little goes on in government without the approval of some or all of these organizations.


Helpful overview, and if your take is spot on, enlightening.


I would add that there are real penalties up to and including death, or worse, for someone in high office, who is a member of one or several of these organizations, and who fails to uphold or goes against the interests of these powerful and well connected fraternities. Were that we could identify all of them beforehand and blacklist them from politics because by default they are servants of oligarchy. some examples: Jimmy Carter - Trilateral Commission; George W, and HW, Bush - Skull and bones; John Kerry - Skull and Bones (I thought that campaign was weak and he gave up before Ohio was done counting - he may have beat Bush - both in the same fraternity, did they decide it),
here’s a few, only the tip of the iceberg, presidents only:


It’s not so easy to compare countries. The same dollar amount would say very little about differences in the standard of living. And GDP and similar traditional measures really do not say much either.

Still, the general thrust of the article is correct, and this can be seen by looking at works that handle the statistics in a lot greater detail.

An essential problem in the US is not just absolute poverty, though we do indeed have a problem with absolute poverty. It is relative poverty–which may not seem as important, but which does impair people’s lives, pitting us against each other and shortening and impoverishing the lives of not only the poor, but also the rich and everyone in between.

Here’s the same links that I have given many times here, but those who have not seen it probably ought to. The problems that are traced go well beyond what Wittner (or anybody else) could cover in an article of this scope.