Home | About | Donate

The Warfare Comes Home


#26

During WWI, Britain passed a law similar to the Patriot Act, aimed at keeping the colonies in line. Gandhi was stumped–this wasn’t a law that dictated what the peasants must do, and so he could not respond by refusing to cooperate. It was a law that said “the people in power may. . .”

Part of King’s power (and most of his power initially) came from his ability to obstruct and refuse compliance. What is the role of the new King when dealing with race-based murders? What can you do besides speak out and beg the people in power to stop killing you, or at least to prosecute those who do? And how does one person emerge as a leader when this is already what everyone else is doing?


#29

Why do we need easily assassinated saviors like MLK, JFK, RFK and Lennon when we can save ourselves direct democratically by removing all barriers to voter initiatives and referendums?


#30

“The war industry, feeding off the state, grows fat and powerful with profits. This is not unique. It is how all empires are hollowed out from the inside. As we are impoverished and stripped of our rights, the tools used to maintain control on the outer reaches of empire—drones, militarized police, indiscriminate violence, a loss of civil liberties, and security and surveillance—are also used at home.”
“To be innocent in a time of radical evil is to be complicit”


#31

"A war today or tomorrow, if it led to nuclear war, would not be like any war in history. A full-scale nuclear exchange, lasting less than 60 minutes, with the weapons now in existence, could wipe out more than 300 million Americans, Europeans, and Russians, as well as untold millions elsewhere.

And the survivors, as Chairman Khrushchev warned the Communist Chinese, “the survivors would envy the dead.”* For they would inherit a world so devastated by explosion and poison and fire that today we cannot even conceive of its horrors.

So let us try to turn the world away from war. Let us make the most of this opportunity, and every opportunity, to reduce tension, to slow down the perilous nuclear arms race, and to check the world’s slide toward final annihilation."

07-26-63
JFK address to the nation announcing the completion of a limited nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union.

*One of the reasons that both Mr. K’s could seriously discuss this issue was that Khruschev had been an eyewitness to the Russian explosion of a 100 megaton hydrogen bomb done on 10-30-61. The experience, according to his son Sergei, stayed with him till his dying day. That was the context of his warning to the Chinese who were in process of readying their own super H bomb for testing.


#32

The “victory garden” skill will surely come in handy.

That’s the thing I notice most about Puerto Rico. Under the ideas of development, modernity, and progress… people have been divested of any understanding of how to survive. They earn what defines the hours trade in time, effort, and labor... and use that to then shop at retail establishments.

(This trend is now global, too.)

Our ancestors knew how to sew their own clothing, preserve food for winter, grow crops and tend animals. Many knew how to do blacksmith work, leather work, and carpentry.

IF humanity survives the next 2 decades, I think the Apprenticeship system will come to be recognized as superior to much that today passes for an education.

The wheel IS turning back in a 1930s redux. One can also tie the Great Depression of l929 which preceded the financial strains of the 1930s (which in turn raised the tide of inter-ethnic hostilities) to the crash of 2008 with its subsequent rise in intolerant bloviating aimed at specific religious and ethnic groups. Again!

You are one of the few posters who also can see the analogy between Germany’s Homeland and our own; the same use of state propaganda; the same use of a targeted/demonized scapegoat/enemy; and a replay of the burning down of the Reichstag… this time, as the towers of capitalism.

Too bad so many are trained to see the future as a line between the past, present, and some distant vanishing point. That distortion makes it impossible to grasp the fact that cyclic patterns invariably and inevitably recur… but like outbreaks of Flu, those that predispose towards fascism (if recognized in time) can be perhaps legally immunized against! (If recognized before they’re given the chance to root and grow.)


#33

Thank you for the head’s up.

Because I am a Feminist, I represent a minority view in this forum.

Because I have committed my life to spiritual studies which include, but are not limited to, the various predictive systems that use ancient oracles… that also marginalizes me.

Modern America is a very intolerant place. Many debates allow for only 2 perspectives, for instance there’s the Science Team competing against the (patriarchal) Religious Team.

So many debates are framed around the idea that facts and observable phenomena must fall under the subject heading of “Science” or “Religion” as if no other possibilities or prisms exist.

I had to run some errands today and I do some of my best thinking while in motion–on a bike, in a car, on a train, etc.

So today’s premise for evaluation centered on the way I watch “distribution” happen. It fans out like its own spectrum because there is something to this idea of the human range.

When I was an Honors Student in high school and went to a college that only considered students with a high grade point average, I noticed that classes STILL broke down into the smart kids and the not so smart kids. In other words, even among students with similar grade point average, a spectrum developed.

The analogy goes to this forum. If people honestly represent themselves and most are truly Progressive, then it’s interesting that from this “community” a definitive range expresses which certainly has some people sounding conservative.

They have ZERO empathy, it would appear, for women’s rights, the fate of Latino families inside the U.S. today, and Black Lives Matter. They minimize these very real struggles and prefer to amalgamate them into that safe (since it negates color, gender, and ethnicity) zone defined by “The Class Struggle.”

I’ve found major antagonism towards the mention of: Yogananda, Carlos Casteneda, Dr. Steven Greer, Edgar Cayce, and other spiritual references.

I also find it more than amusing that these days EVERY conceivable kind of sex (and how people self-identify primarily through the actions of their genitals) is out of the closet, but serious discussions about mysticism, metaphysics, and cycles remain the great taboo.

I thought I’d remain active in TV and radio as was the direction of my career until the mid l990s. That’s also the interim in which most major radio and TV stations were bought out by Conservative (often pro-war, and certainly pro-corporate) interests.

But I’ve always felt the need to share what I know, and this knowledge looks at present events through the prism of the great cosmic cycles. A few people have shown respect and an interest in this level of conjecture, but too many have sounded a lot like the tunnel thinkers of Galileo’s time: they wish to violently silence “the heretic.”

So long as I have the time and inclination, I will bring this unique perspective into discussions. And the idea that I am “hostile to those who don’t agree with me” is really a reversal: It is a reflection of those who do not want any other ideologies taken under consideration, ones that might challenge the paradigm.

The word WE itself suggests uniformity and conformity. What that means is that it’s an excellent, sneaky way to insist upon agreement instead of opening the floor to new alternatives. We is a referendum on yesterday’s consensus and by its nature (uniform) it shuts out any challenge to itself (what was).

In order to BE a genuine voice of alternative thinking, I refuse to identify with that term since it puts everyone into the same tent.

The Age of Aquarius IS underway and it calls upon novel thinkers, inventors, innovators, rebels, iconoclasts, revolutionaries, and the originators of completely new philosophical systems.

Since necessity is the Mother of invention, and there’s a whole lot of necessity knocking… so many people carry the SEED of invention that will give rise to the Next Wave and a very different harvest for humanity.

Until people are WILLING to look past what they think is true and binding, and willing to step out of the formation that locks everyone into prior beliefs and behaviors, the revolution in experience, manifest reality, and consciousness this Next Phase depends upon cannot happen.

It’s amazing to view footage NOT seen in U.S. media that captures just how much necessity is knocking through sudden floods, droughts, sink holes, and anomalous weather events that are truly popping up all over.

(Thank you for the nod. It’s FAR more interesting to arrive at a mutual understanding after a rigorous debate, than start there.)


#34

I should congratulate the Blame Voters/Citizen squad. I don’t know if you have a quality control officer who reviews the data streams and advises as per the next strategy, or if this is merely organic.

Your comment, of course, sets up that MUST DO–blame the great WE for what war profiteers are doing.

Your comment bypasses the CONCLUSIONS reached by the Page and Gilens study that citizens have ZERO impact over policy.

Now, even if you wish to prop up the argument that you vote with your dollars; surely you must understand that in a system of ersatz capitalism as decoupled from labor and actual resources as Wall St.'s hedge funds and derivative betting tanks have become, consumer trends only go so far.

If banks can print money out of thin air, and these days, the global market in derivatives and “other exotic financial instruments” is estimated at close to $130 trillion whereas the ACTUAL global GDP of nations is about one-third of that… the relevance of the individual consumer to the Games that Wealth Plays is vastly minimized.

These arguments–always projected at the Individual or the Voter–leave out the power of systems and that within these systems, systemic corruptions are so thoroughly embedded and so expensive in so many ways… that this constant aim at “the man/woman on the street” meme is getting tiring.

That meme (speaking to “the man on the street”) is the core of advertising, PR, and a major ideological component of the Koch Brothers’ think tank network.

By placing one generation against another, they set a pretext for chipping away at Social Security’s legitimacy.

By suggesting that the welfare Mama gets all her dough free as the poor blue collar worker sweats for his, antagonism is drummed up for particular demographics.

The advertising world forever speaks to the single digit consumer. How better to sell 5 TVS to the same household?

Frankly, I think the focus on the individual (consumer/voter/sheeple) generates from the same think tanks and ideological boardrooms that essentially prop up a dog-eat-dog version of Libertarianism, that under the guise of supporting the individual’s FREEDOM kicks down the government (arguably created for, by, and about The People) that is the only entity that could serve as a substantial enough bulwark against the rapacious greed of corporations… along with what today has become private armies for hire: they are to corporate malfeasance what the Wise Guy is to the local Don.

In short, with your spotlight focused on Mr. Average Citizen rather than the Authors of Evil… it’s like swatting at a bee instead of getting rid of the hive.


#35

The Hannah Arendt quote that: “War abroad entails tyranny at home,” is fairly well understood; and so is the evidence that when the Roman Empire spent all of its blood and treasure on foreign war and conquests, it left its own domestic infrastructure to rot.

If not mentioned in any advanced history course, certainly thinkers–and published authors–made the redundant (and all too visually apparent) historical links known.


#36

Yes, there were local fights because of the Settlers, just like in Israel today. But the first four Presidents kept us out of Greater European Wars which we were being pressured to join. The War of 1812 was because we told them NO WAY. World War is what the first Four Presidents kept us out of (with the exception of the Barbary Coast, half-hearted protection of American shipping, which Jefferson refused to do for years, and took major criticism for allowing France to attack American ships and Barbary Coast Pirates.

Most of those fights with the Indian Tribes were once again, instigated by European powers inciting tribes to attack the fledgling USA.


#37

Yes I disagree, that local tribal wars are not World Wars.

Yes, there were local fights because of the Settlers, just like in Israel today. But the first four Presidents kept us out of Greater European Wars which we were being pressured to join. The War of 1812 was because we told them NO WAY. World War is what the first Four Presidents kept us out of (with the exception of the Barbary Coast, half-hearted protection of American shipping, which Jefferson refused to do for years, and took major criticism for allowing France to attack American ships and Barbary Coast Pirates.) Washington and Jefferson and Adams also kept us out of repeated fights with England over trade and violations to the Paris Accord that ended the Revolutionary War.

President Adams fought against the warhawks also. Hamilton had built up a massive Army to invade Florida and Adams wouldn’t let him do it. No one ever cites these larger avoided wars. But America was largely peaceful all the way up through Jefferson, who fought tooth and nail to prevent military buildup. Before 1800, he fought Adams large Navy Buildup knowing that those ships would either be used in a ruinous war, or left to just rot at the dock.

Most of those fights with the Indian Tribes were once again, instigated by European powers inciting tribes to attack the fledgling USA. And that’s what started the ruinous truly first world war: The Seven Years War (or French and Indian War as it was known in North America.) Those Indian tribes would have never attacked us if it weren’t for the French giving them weapons and paying them to do it. Now there was land speculation by the Federalist Washington and Franklin in the Ohio Valley and massive settlers ignoring the Government treaty in Georgia which lead to Indian conflict and deportation but these pale by comparison to the ruin caused by large scale navies and armies waging war all through the continents and Colonies.

That link you gave us, however, is quite wrong. Iran has been the site of war for thousands of years. The Persian Empire took over all the middle East and Asia, invading all the way from India to Egypt. Must have just slipped the author’s mind!

Iran’s never had a war? That’s a good one! What about the eight-year Iran-Iraq war?


#38

War is war. The War on Mexico was not a World war yet remains a war. The war against Spain was not a world war yet remains a war. When you are using a military to expand territories and sieze lands of another you are making WAR on them by definition.

Claiming the wars against the Native tribes was due to European powers instigating the same is nonsense. Your own Thomas Jefferson wrote about manifest destiny and how the US would in time claim all of the America’s for the Anglo Saxon race. The United States of America at its founding was a State based on the European model and run by peoples who came from Europe or whose ancestors did.

Those early pilgrims no sooner got off the boats then they started capturing Indians to use as slaves. Andrew Jackson justified attacking Florida because they were giving shelter to escaped slaves. His rounding up of the Cherokee had nothing to do with “European powers meddling” nor were later wars against the Sioux or Apache .

The willingness to wage war against weaker peoples but not against stronger powers does not mean one is “opposed to war” anymore then Nobel Prize winning Barack Obama a man of peace as he wages war on Syria and Libya.

Your own President Kennedy indicated where the adherence to myth leads

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie–deliberate, contrived and dishonest–but the myth–persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

I suggest when the truths of those “founding fathers” revealed, as done by the likes of Howarrd Zinn and Michael Parenti, a whole lot of people get uncomfortable. Giovanni posted an excellent link the other day regarding how the US from the start used Colonialism and the Military to push their boundaries to the Pacific ocean.(I can not find it now but suggest you review it) This was not due to them wanting peace. They wanted land. Their war for land was every bit the same as Israel uses today using its Military against a weaker people. Israel and the USA were both born in violence and founded on war as you acknowledge.

The reality is the First nations peoples that occupied the land on which the modern nation state of the United States of America exists were all but exterminated and saw virtually all of their lands siezed. this was not done through peaceful means or by a people who hated war.

The fact is The First nations peoples were not Colonizing territories settled by those Europeans in the Thirteen Colonies. Natives from what is now Kentucky were not traversing the Appalachians to grab land prompted by the Europeans. It was white settlers that were moving into those territories causing the conflict and they were encouraged to settle those lands by those peace loving founding fathers.

The excuse you use to justify those wars on the First nations peoples is the very same one the British used when their Military seized all of India. They claimed local tribes instigated by foreign powers forced the Empire to respond with its Military. They started with a few trading ports and soon annexed the entire Continent. The only difference was they did not replace the peoples living there those other “Indians” with Europeans.


#39

Are we not owned today by Wall Street? By Bankers? And it’s instructive to realize that those men, the founding fathers did not start slavery. The British Empire, London ruled on all matters of trade and commerce for the Colonies.


#41

Perhaps a picture will prove instructive as to the political motives of European Empires like England, France and Spain to incite tribes to attack the newborn United States:
.

.
I took Early American History in college and studied the actual accounts of pacifist priests and translations of the oral testimony of Native Americans. The tribes practiced genocide and slavery and rape and burning of villages against rival tribes. They sold women to each other as property and sex-slaves. They tortured children and women captured in their frequent raids. To pretend they were innocent victims of violence is not to address the reality of nomadic tribal life in Early North America.

Just as today, warrior tribes are always used by Empires by proxy to attack rival powers. But the unspoken truth about North America in the 1700’s was that there was room for everyone who would be peaceful since there were only One million inhabitants of the 13 English Colonies in 1776 including slaves and Native Americans. The insistence of continuing nomadic tribal migration (abandoning lands seasonally and then returning a year later to find them occupied by Europeans) combining with the incitement of violence by the fading empires of France and Spain assured conflict.


#42

Your post does not refute anything I have stated.

The French were practicing slavery when they made war on the british. it does not mean the French were pacifists and hated war or the British desired peace. That your Native tribes made war on one another does not mean the founders of the USA were pacifists.

That Arabs were figthing among themselves and Palestinians killing druze, does not mean the ottomans that occupied them or the Israelis that came later were peaceful. You are making the EXACT same argument today that Israel uses as it continues to strip away land from the Palestinians. They claim it self defense and that foreign powers wish to see them destroyed. they are claiming that the Governments of the Nations that surround them want to destroy them. They used this reasoning in 1948 and 1956 and in 1967 and use it today.

The fact remains that in spite of that the Muslims might have been doing to one another prior to the israelis arrival, the Israelis are a European Colonizing nation just as your early Americans were and they are dispossessing the lands of the inhabitants just as your European settlers did.

This does not mean Israel is devoted to peace any more then your founding fathers were. The only reason your founding fathers wrote to paper that they wished to have good relations with the European powers was because they saw it as more PROFITABLE to trade than to make war. With The First nations peoples, the Mexicans and Spaniards they saw it as more profitable to make war and steal their lands and resources then to trade.

They knew full well that as a new nation they were not going to be able to sail over to the British Isles and conquer the same but when it came to making war on the weaker tribes in the Americas or on Mexico there little those peoples could do to fend off the US Military.

You have a tendency to always quote words from those founding fathers that put them in a good light. You simply ignore their other writings as it not suitaing your view of them so you dismiss those other words of meaningless and resort to illogical arguments that because the various tribes made war on one another, this somehow makes what the European settlers did to them through the newly found State called the United States of America as not warlike.

The United States of America was not a nation founded in peace. It was a nation founded on slavery, genocide and in violent revolution. That embrace of violence made evident in that Amendment with its “right to bear arms”. From the very first days they would use and promote violence to achieve their goals and they do so to this day. No nation on this earth that I can think of, outside a few run by despots has embraced Militarism as much as the United States has and no other nation on this Earth suggests that as the worlds “one indispensible nation” its use of force throughout its history was always justified and it always the victim of some other nation as does the US and its historians.

Whether they were killing Apache, or killing Mexicans or killing the Nez Perce or killing Filipinos or killing the Vietnamese it was always their victims fault. Just as remains the case today.


#43

Thank you for your thoughtful and considered response, Siouxrose; thanks for taking the time to answer. Best wishes, and peace.


#44

Siouxrose, after silently following your threads and thoughts for some years now, I have to agree with BillinDubuque. Your posts are always uppers for me. I hope you live to the ripe old age of 142 and keep writing all that time.


#45

User pays, mate; user pays! And rich USAians still don’t want to pay their fair share of the social burden. 1776 established the tradtion. George Washigton and avoidance of war; was he not an officer in the British colonial Army that fought the French in the USA? Was Adams the tea-smuggler whose illicit trade was undercut by the British East India Company’s tea ships arriving in Boston? Please pardon, and correct, my ignorance of the early history of our former north American colonies. I do know that George Washington, as a young lad, had a thing about chopping down cherry trees. However, it sounds as if Madison hit the nail square on the head.


#46

:smile:

LoL! You and I tend to be nationalists, I think, and haven’t quite transitioned to the reality that there isn’t any USA or Canada any more (just the English Empire run by “The Five Eyes”.)

Well Perhaps you will be so kind as to show me an example of where I have not acknowledged any writings of the founding fathers. :older_man:

Your obvious extreme hatred of Americans always colors your otherwise well-stated rebuttals. Canadians did the same exact things in the frontier in the 1700’s; so your finger always pointing at the USA is invalid. You destroy the islands I’m on right now with Canadian mining companies and type on the internet pretending you are not to blame. Do I blame Canadian citizens for the greed of the One Percent? No, I don’t.

Now I’m am not aware I’ve ever concealed any writings of the founding fathers. I look at source documents whereas, you make absurd claims from third-party sources like NGO’s like “there’s no guns in the Philippines” which I know to be ridiculous. You’re an urbanite who is afraid of guns, and who does not live in the frontier. I hear the bullets whizzing past my house all the time, so I know you are telling it like it isn’t. We just had 12 murders yesterday by guns, so I know you are an incompetent armchair commentator on some of your reads of present and past.

And you do that with history as well. You used to claim that the Second Amendment was not about private citizens being armed. It took me years, I think, to prove to you that gun ownership in North America was originally about hunting for food at homesteads.

I disagree that the US is not about peace. Here you are, free to criticize anyone you like, on CD, which is run by Americans and is on an American server, protected by the American First Amendment. That’s pretty peaceful. For citizens of the Empire. Nothing bad has happened to you or me in a decade of criticizing those in power.

Banksters, like Alexandar Hamilton and the Lords of London who financed arms trafficking to tribes cause peaceful colonies to resort to raids. France and Spain did the same thing, until they ran out of money. Then we peacefully bought the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon for two million dollars. Ditto Spain after the 1898 war.

Perhaps the Middle East problem would go away if the Israelis would just buy Gaza and the West Bank instead of building Concentration Camp Walls around it. At least in America, we gave the Native Americans Reservations, which are tax free to this very day. I used to fly for the richest Indians in the World, so I know about their wealth, which you can see in the form of numerous large Casinos on tribal land. All tax free.

That link, however, by Mr. Parenti was pretty good overall. I have some criticisms of it however:

Now I don’t known who Michael Parenti is, but it wasn’t that no one could afford to take time off to attend the four month Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The truth was that no one knew it was going on. The Meeting was secret and before anyone knew what the meeting was about, Madison made them all sign a secrecy pledge not to tell the people what coup they were up to. Do I want an illiterate “Dirt Poor Farmer” designing the government? Maybe not. Maybe I want the Rabble, the Masses to pick a Bernie Sanders, who has great experience to do it.

also another mistake by Parenti is that the supreme court would rule on all matters of Constitutionality. That wasn’t the case at all until after 1800 in Mulbury vs. Madison. The 1787 government was intentionally ambiguous about who could decide that and most other things or else it never would have been ratified!

Parenti’s ideas on Land ownership being a “Marxist Only” idea are strange. In this Capitalist Society, dozens of Homestead Acts were passed where common citizens could claim land for free, if they would build a house and farm the land. So the barrier to representation was not merely lack of Land ownership and not having 1000 pounds clear. It was inventing all these other layers of government like the electoral college, the Executive Branch, A massive Federal Court apparatus that would disenfranchise local state courts and diluting the common citizens representation down from one rep for 300 citizens to the now useless situation in California of one rep for 749,000 people, meaning you will never speak to your rep unless you pay thousands of dollars to attend a 10,000 dollar a plate fundraiser.

Parenti is wrong about the Bill of Rights being “a reluctant concession to the lower classes, won by the agitation of democratic forces in society” [paraphrasing]. The Anti-Federalists who demanded and got us a Bill of Rights or else the new government would be stillborn, were rich men of property like Patrick Henry, George Mason, and Samuel Adams (who they didn’t invite) who didn’t trust a new huge federal government in a crystal city of political whores to disarm the entire nation and just trust a new king to be fair to them.

Obviously, they were right not to trust the newborn Uncle Sam about anything! They knew you could have Freedom or Perfect Safety, but not both at the same time. They didn’t trust the government to be the only ones armed. Neither do I!

Cheers,

TJ


#47

Just think; if we had made good Sir Francis Drake’s claim to California and had retained Oregon and Washington with Spain developing New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, and France the Mississippi Valley and Great Lakes from New Orleans, and of course we Brits also retaining Canada, what a wonderful; cilvised place the USA would be today.


#48

George_III-
Sure, I will “pardon your ignorance of the early history of the colonies” as soon as I can find some. With your understanding of the way events came down, it’s a pretty sure bet that you never wasted your time in OUR history books.