Home | About | Donate

Why Doesn’t the Foreign Policy Establishment Take World Peace Seriously?


Why Doesn’t the Foreign Policy Establishment Take World Peace Seriously?

Didier Jacobs

It’s the fall of 1993. I’m sitting in my Foreign Policy 101 class at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. The faculty — a former State Department official — goes through a list of US “national interests.” The usual suspects are all there: preventing nuclear proliferation, strengthening democracy in Eastern Europe, and so on.

I raise my hand to argue that protecting the Brazilian rainforest is also a vital U.S. national interest. The faculty’s reaction? “Er, so, if Brazilians keep chopping down their forest, should we bomb them?”

Welcome to the establishment’s mindset!


The establishment does not want peace. They want to push their capitalist, expansionist agenda, and that means oppression and war.


"According to these polls and Page and Bouton’s analysis, elites don’t deliver on these priorities, in part because of the establishment’s misperception of the public’s preferences and in part because of the checks and balances of the U.S. political system, which allow a minority to block policy (such as the super-majority necessary for the Senate to ratify treaties)."

The poll numbers are interesting, but to speak about elites NOT aligning with the public's wishes and NOT mention the military-industrial-media complex is like talking about nudity and not acknowledging the naked fellow in the first row. With WAR the ultimate goal of Disaster Capitalism (and it's most consistent basis for generating dark profits), war will be what's served to the masses whether they like it or not. That is until a collapse of the existing paradigm fully occurs and there are plenty of indications that this very thing is underway.... starting with the graft that runs the global economic system.

It's amazing how many writers talk in circles without ever aiming at the appropriate target.

This paragraph shows how strongly the top-down authoritarian character of the military-industrial complex governs and controls what passes for scholarship. Never once is it--or the love of war (on the part of these soldiers-for-life) mentioned:

"For international affairs graduates, challenging such consensus views puts access to senior government jobs at risk. An academic at a prominent university whom I interviewed in preparation for this essay quickly grasped where I was heading and confided that “it is impossible to make a career in this field with an alternative view; it is not by chance that alternative views come from people educated in other disciplines, like linguistics for Noam Chomsky or law for Richard Falk.”


No, that is not correct! Aggression as well as altruism and compassion are part of the human makeup, but there is nothing inevitable about war.


He's a talking parrot. That's one of his lines. Unexamined... merely regurgitated for a piece of banana.


"it is not by chance that alternative views come from people educated in other disciplines, like linguistics for Noam Chomsky or law for Richard Falk."

Or medicine for Che.


World peace will probably never be achieved in our lifetime as long as the Amerikan empire's hegemony, hubris, and world wide power remain with some 800 military bases in countries throughout the world that exist to protect the vested interests of the economic elite.

But the warmongers that are protecting their vast fortunes and economic interests have been able to brainwash the US public with so many canards for so long with the Orwellian: PEACE! PEACE! PEACE! WHEN WHAT THEY REALLY WANT IS: WAR! WAR! WAR!


By and large, people are fooled by position and conventionality at every move. You'll no doubt know that's why Jung is less well known (oops edit) THAN Freud - Freud having advised him not to dabble in stuff that was not mainstream... One has to admire the spirit that disrespects such pressure...


Why Doesn't the Foreign Policy Establishment Take World Peace Seriously?
* Because nobody has found a way to make Peace more Profitable than War.
* And, those who control and direct the Foreign Policy Establishment are mainly the War Profiteers, the Oligarchy, the 0.001%.
* They are quite happy with the current, deadly, status quo.


Sometimes these headlining questions do make the authors sound like dough-balls!


Actually this author presented a very good overview of the issue, based on a conceptual analysis of the world view/perspective (we call it social construction of reality) of this group of individuals. The fact that it manifests in the extreme power given the military-industrial complex is important but only incidental and not primary to his discussion. One thing he could have explored, but somehow missed (and I think this is an interesting oversight I notice quite a bit) is the generational aspect of these perspectives, as well as their cultural basis. A study of how the upcoming generations see their relationship with the rest of the world and their intentions would be interesting.


You are limited in your scholarship and insist upon a narrative of history and human nature that is male-centric. There have been earlier societies that did not conform to this model. In addition, many Indigenous cultures did not make war their centerpiece.

In precisely the same way that today's captured corporate media remains fixed on false narratives--like the one pertaining to Putin as Ukraine's aggressor, or that of Bin Laden as responsible for 911--OLD narratives like those preferred by patriarchal father figures make war the central factor of human existence when that is an effect of a cause. The cause is emphasis on masculine shows of aggression and force of dominance.

THAT may be natural to many males but it is certainly not what's natural for females. And dummies come back with the ridiculous retort that the few current female figure-heads--having adapted to the "house that macho patriarchy built" show that women are just like men. Such reasoning is merely proof positive of tautological thinking (look it up in a dictionary). They show themselves as unimaginative fools since they argue that adaptation to an existing paradigm means it's the only viable example of "reality." What it is, instead, is proof positive of the asymmetric, pro-war insanity that results when half the human race is either:

  1. Forced to identify with male models
  2. Only validated when adapting to male models
  3. Sees some of its members granted titles and high status for embracing the male model
  4. Typically hears dialog that ONLY reflects what's real for the dominant society which is White-Male centered
  5. Rendered invisible, irrelevant, or worse for NOT adapting

OTHER is not given a chance, and in that manner, the power of alternative is kept invisible. Then paid message monkeys can just repeat the tired pabulum that reinforces a highly limited, albeit existing paradigm.

No, Boston boy... your worldview is a pitiful reflection of lies preferred by church-state elites. I am yet to hear you say ANYTHING remotely original. Parrot, it is.


2000 years = patriarchy's reign... actually, closer to 4000. So what you're missing is about 650,000 years of human existence prior to the macho kings decreeing their divinity and turning everyone else into a slave, serf, or lower status number existing within the hierarchies that machismo coupled with armed force erected.


Freud catered to the patriarchal establishment which was UTTERLY convinced--at the time--that men were vastly superior to women in morality, intellect, and physical strength. Celebrated foremost were his penis envy theories... of all ridiculousness. A biological basis for superiority! What a novel thought! Freud was the Karl Rove of his era. And look how far his nephew Edward Bernays took theories about the unconscious and its longings... this bit of the psychic puzzle catapulted Madison Ave. to where it is today in playing merchant to the world, AS THE PLANET DIES!

Time for a course correction... any thinking person would realize.

Freud, a Taurus, identified strongly with his own body... and member. Unable to think much past that particular frame, he mistook the enormous frustration (defined as "neurosis") shown by intelligent women for missing a dick rather than as natural angst. Adult women were imprisoned by a SYSTEM that prevented them from voting, owning property, choosing their husbands, or traveling without an escort. In short, most were under a kind of house arrest similar to what fundamentalist Muslims inflict on women throughout the Arab world, starting with the Saudis and Taliban.

So thick was the presumption that women just didn't NEED to vote, own property, decide things on their own about their own bodies and destinies that any despair in the face of such structured circumstances was judged by the ruling psychologist of the time as the mark of a deep personal flaw. And Freud deduced it was that missing penis.

Only a man could come up with THAT and only a male-centered field of psychology could applaud it! But then the "father of gynecology" practiced on slave women without using any anesthesia... trying to turn them into breeding mares with the same sensitivity shown to farm animals kept in pens and fed prodigious levels of hormones to force them to more quickly reproduce.

While some men manage to make it through all of the cruel initiations into manhood with a modicum of sensitivity still in place, most do not. And when women are expected to shelve that sensitivity because any show of feeling is seen as weakness, and the left brain structures of academe cannot bear any ideology that departs from strict mathematical scores and other linear measurements, the WHOLE realm of feminine sentience has been largely cordoned off... for both genders.

I am not going to share more since I have devoted my life to writing BOOKS on this subject. That's why a snot-nosed kid who's never read outside of basic "George Washington would never tell a lie" boundaries is not going to warrant much respect from me. Besides, quite likely the same members of the same tag teams have repeated this same talking point and 100 times or more I have refuted it. As have Feminists who depart from standard education fare in daring to bring to light the missing voice of the Feminine side of Creation and Source.

I long for the day that men as intelligent and caring as John Dear, Robert Koehler, and this Pope... come to realize that the masculine view does NOT speak for all and in pushing this arrogant conceit for centuries, it's largely the absence of the contemplative, reflective, empathic, FEMININE counterbalance that's made for such a lopsided (pro war & technology, added to rabid ecocide) society.

I speak for that missing balance and will continue to do so.

Arguing for the existing paradigm and insisting that it reflects TRUE reality is just very, very old and dangerous church-state propaganda.


I disagree. Vehemently. His view and essay are antiseptic. As some astute CD commentators point out, any discussion about the ravages to our planet and the way corporations go about like post-judicial entities capitalizing on profits while externalizing costs loses veracity if it does not mention capitalism. Disaster capitalism, in particular.

The glaring causative factor would be missing from such an analysis. It works the same way in relation to this essay/article in that critiquing the priorities of "deciders" and painting them as ridiculous--from the standpoint of wasted lives, resources, and redundant (framed as "losing battles") outcomes--without mentioning the PRIMACY of the deep state/CIA/MIC presents an equally superficial analysis. In fact, it smacks of plausible deniability... and YOU are granting THAT approach cover.


I am not going to share more since I have devoted my life to writing BOOKS on this subject.

Where might I find such books? Do tell!


I had forgotten the dick-envy side of Freuds ramblings. For other reasons I thought it was a lot of crap - he seemed to invent a few concepts of his own and then seek to explain human behaviour with his little Lego block version of reality - whilst it is considered that the highly mysterious human brain is actuallt the most complex entity (not) known to human kind.

Maybe this will interest you...


This is scary in the sense that I was thinking along the same lines before coming across your post.

As a note, not all males are geared toward aggression and domination.


Thanks, SR, for a good chuckle. You are so indignant, and the more you babble the more obvious it becomes you have NO CLUE what you're talking about here. You're off topic and wandering into an area that has zero to do with what the author is trying to address.


Or Law/Legal Practice for Castro....