X Close

Why America will never give up on war Power, not money, corrupts politicians

Are greedy psychopaths keeping America at war? AFP/Getty Images


January 16, 2023   9 mins

Last month, the US Congress approved an $858 billion national defence bill, increasing the Pentagon’s budget by 8% and allocating an additional $44 billion in military aid for Ukraine. One popular explanation for America’s relentlessly expanding military budget, and foreign policy hawkishness in general, is that this reflects the “unwarranted influence” of the “military-industrial complex” that President Eisenhower gravely warned America to guard against in his famous farewell address some 62 years ago.

In this view — as strongly argued recently by the journalist Glenn Greenwald, for instance — the US arms manufacturing industry, the military, and our politicians are all essentially engaged in a circle of corruption and collusion to make each other rich. This common understanding of the military-industrial complex — and of how politics in Washington works in general — is essentially conspiratorial. The theory goes something like this: big defence contractors bribe the politicians with large donations, and the generals and other government officials with board seats and other lucrative positions, and they in turn come up with reasons to justify shovelling ever-increasing piles of taxpayer money into buying new weapons from the arms makers.

Washington has thus become a “multi-tentacle war machine”, Greenwald says, because “no matter what is going on in the world, they always find — or concoct — reasons why the military budget must grow no matter how inflated it already is”. (Emphasis mine.)

Let’s call this the Corrupt Conspiracy Model of how Washington functions (or dysfunctions). It is a model that can be powerfully convincing, because it taps into the truth that people really are naturally flawed and self-interested creatures, demonstrably prone to corruption. From this viewpoint, Washington politics is all basically a con game led by a pack of greedy psychopaths. As Greenwald notes with some frustration and confusion, this used to be a characteristically Left-wing critique of government and corporate power, but following the Great Political Realignment it’s now become more common to the disaffected Right.

Reading his argument made me recall how, back when I was younger and Left-leaning, I too believed in this model, at least implicitly. As noted, it can be quite persuasive, even satisfying, in its simplicity. It’s also a subtly idealistic and optimistic theory: the American system would work great, just as it was designed to, if not for all the selfish bad actors taking advantage of the system. The only problem was that, after enough time in Washington, I had no choice but to re-evaluate. Because what I found is that the swamp is populated almost wholly not by cynics, but by true believers.

True believers in what? Answering that will require trying to nail down a second, more complex model to explain how people in the Imperial City make decisions.

First, let me qualify by acknowledging that yes, Washington is indeed awash with lobbyists, corrupt politicians, psychopathic executives, cynical operators, and backstabbing climbers. It is a veritable hive of scum and villainy. They just aren’t what really makes the place tick. In fact, all these people conform themselves parasitically to that which does.

The real issue to contend with is that almost no one in Washington actually thinks in the terms of the Corrupt Conspiracy Model; i.e. they don’t think: “I will advocate for a hawkish, interventionist foreign policy so that the resulting wars will benefit the arms industry and make me and my friends rich
” The reality is more disturbing than that, honestly.

What runs Washington is a Spirit. Or, alternatively, a Story.

No one wants to live a meaningless life. Humans are meaning-seeking creatures and they desperately want, need, what they do to have meaningful value. If they cannot find inherent meaning in life, they are liable to come up with a narrative framework — that is, a story — that imbues what they do with some sense of higher meaning. Since everyone wants to be the hero of their story, the story becomes central to their personal identity. And no one wants their identity to be dull (even if they’re a government bureaucrat).

But while a few very special people can create and maintain their own personal stories indefinitely, living life entirely in their own self-sustained dramatic reality, for most people the much easier and more reassuring route is to simply adopt a collective story that already exists. The more popular or high-status this story is, the more attractive and self-reinforcing it will be — and the harder it will, therefore, be to disbelieve, dissent, and defect from.

Now, when one talks to members of the Washington establishment, the collective story they hold to tends to quickly become apparent.

None are, in their own minds, either corrupt cynics or ideological zealots. Instead they are moderate, prudent, wise “public servants”; the trained and chosen elite guardians of American interests and values. Sensible centrists, they do what must be done to ensure America’s security and prosperity, steering the ship of state along a pragmatic course, eschewing both the goodhearted but naïve idealism of the too-far-Left and the crude jingoistic nationalism of the populist-Right.

This pragmatism does not, of course, preclude their simultaneously being moral exemplars. They embody America’s highest ideals, given that they are the ones extending the light of whatever truly makes America great, whether that be liberal democracy, equality and human rights, pluralism and diversity, scientific progress, or economic liberty. In protecting the global world order of Pax Americana, they make the world safe for American ideals. In fact, these guardians are basically the bulwark of Enlightened Civilisation writ large, taming barbarian savagery wherever it rears its ugly head, whether in Afghanistan or Alabama. Even a moment’s slackness and “the jungle grows back”.

American power is righteous, because it is on the right side of History; as clearly demonstrated by the fact that America is so powerful. And if that power is righteous and good, it deserves to be exercised. To use righteous power to remake the world in our own image would by definition be to make the world better. Thus extending American power is both the most pragmatic and the most idealistic possible course.

This story, which has dominated Washington since at least the end of the Cold War, is what we might label The Consensus. Maybe all or some elements of The Consensus are true. Or maybe it’s all nonsense. It doesn’t really matter; that’s not the point. Those who submit themselves to The Consensus can by doing so automatically consider themselves better people, engaged in more meaningful lives. And their peers will consider them to be as well.

A term that one is liable to hear used in Washington is “Serious Person”. On being asked to meet with someone he doesn’t know (maybe a journalist, or a potential new hire), for example, a Very Important Washingtonian may first inquire of his staff: “Well, is he a Serious Person?” But what makes a person Serious? A Serious Person is, naturally, an orthodox follower of The Consensus. Asking if someone is a Serious Person is a bit like a secular version of how one might have asked, back in the day, whether some new fellow was in fact a “God-fearing Christian?” “Yes,” would come the reply, “and he went to Yale.” “Good enough, let’s put him in charge of the OSS,” you could then say with confidence.

Rumour that some new acquaintance is in fact a Serious Person is greatly reassuring, as it means he is not a “Wingnut”. A Wingnut is an unsociable crank, living outside of The Consensus. Wingnuts demonstrate this by suggesting unserious ideas, such as cutting the defence budget, curtailing the surveillance state, or questioning the demands of the public health bureaucracy. Glenn Greenwald is a Wingnut par excellence. Nobody wants to be associated with a Wingnut, as that can taint your reputation as a Serious Person. And then you’ll never be invited to a swanky conference in Aspen again. Which is probably why for every mile closer to Capitol Hill a foreign policy think tank is, the more measurably it advocates in favour of militant internationalism. These are the Serious Institutions, able to court the serious money necessary to afford prime real estate.

Here then is the point: why is it so likely that any given person in the Washington “Blob” will automatically support raising the defence budget, or intervening militarily in some country abroad, or otherwise expanding the security state? In the vast majority of cases, it’s not because they’re taking bribes from some defence contractor. It’s because they simply want more than anything to be counted among the Serious People. And to do that they first have to accept the word and practice of The Consensus.

Sometimes they may not fully buy it, but conform merely because it’s the path of least resistance. Often, they do buy it completely. I once had a former General and Director of the CIA tell me, with complete earnestness, that the United States had to occupy every single “ungoverned space” on earth — every conflict zone, every “rogue state”, every barren patch of sand large enough for an Isis terrorist to do doughnuts in a Toyota pickup. No one was paying him to say this (yet); it was pure idealistic conviction. And there are a lot of people in Washington far less distinguished than he who labour daily to help shore up The Consensus: legions of non-profit workers, lowly staffers, and ambitious interns who happily pump out endless Consensus-reiterating briefing papers, reports, op-eds, and legislative bills (all of which are written by people under 35 who have no idea what they’re doing, by the way). The military-industrial complex doesn’t have to bribe any of them. They are working to cultivate the illustrious aura of a Serious Person.

Any financial rewards are secondary to the power, prestige, and psychological assurance of being counted among the ruling class and holding the right opinions. This does not of course mean there aren’t significant financial rewards that flow to senior figures, but to the “public servant” they genuinely bear no conceivable trace of wrongful quid pro quo. As far as they are concerned, they are merely doing the right thing in service to the public and the nation, and being fairly compensated for it. Being paid to sit on Raytheon’s board and lobby for a strong national defence is public service, as is being paid by CNN to go on TV and call dissenters a dangerous threat to our democracy. Advancing The Consensus is, after all, the essence of public service. This complex is utterly impervious to any charges of corruption or hypocrisy, because from the inside such charges literally sound like the mad rantings of an immoral and maliciously anti-American Wingnut.

It would be tempting to call this ideological capture, but I don’t think that quite describes it. The Consensus is not an ideology with clear or coherent doctrines. And it is extremely adaptable and flexible, seamlessly incorporating new threats and opportunities (which is why “diversity, equity, and inclusion” is now regularly cited as a top foreign policy priority). Instead, it works more loosely, subconsciously, to shape what individuals and institutions value and what they believe is right and normal and just. It really is more like a deep story about the world and how it works; or a spirit that moves subjects without their understanding how or why, or even that it exists.

Which is why I think I need to introduce one more element in order to fully explain what really runs Washington.

Everyone and everything needs a hierarchy of values to operate, otherwise they risk having no telos — no purpose, motivation, or orientation for action. And at the top of this pyramid of values or principles must necessarily be some highest value or principle, from which all others descend.

Bureaucracies, which are themselves pyramidal, subsume an individual’s values and objectives into themselves; the individual’s value hierarchy and telos is then effectively restructured or replaced by the telos superimposed from above by the bureaucracy. Which is why the bureaucracy so often seems to co-opt its individuals and take on a life of its own. But many singular bureaucracies, such as the Defence and State Departments, exist side-by-side in Washington and operate simultaneously. And, at least theoretically, they are all part of the same government and on the same side. What unites them in direction and orientation, if anything? Some pyramid of higher values, naturally. This is the role of The Consensus.

Does The Consensus itself also exist as part of an even higher story? Maybe. The author Paul Kingsnorth has I think wisely described there being, at the pinnacle of our collective Western civilisational subconscious, an “empty throne,” where once sat God:

“[E]very culture, whether it knows it or not, is built around a sacred order. It does not, of course, need to be a Christian order. It could be Islamic, Hindu or Daoist. It could be based around the veneration of ancestors or the worship of Odin. But there is a throne at the heart of every culture, and whoever sits on it will be the force you take your instruction from.”

“The modern experiment,” however, “has been the act of dethroning both literal human sovereigns and the representative of the sacred order, and replacing them with purely human, and purely abstract, notions — ‘the people’ or ‘liberty’ or ‘democracy’ or ‘progress.’” But one sacred value must necessarily rule above all others, and “when a culture kills its sovereign, the throne will not remain empty for long”.

What now occupies this empty throne today, if anything? Kingsnorth has suggested it is “money”. As I’ve written before, I don’t think that’s it. I think it is something more fundamental: I think it’s what could be called the spirit in Man that hungers for infinite “control” — meaning power itself. The power to have all good things, from material comfort to equality, without any limits or contradictions; power over all evils and all suffering and all dangers; power over human nature. It’s the desire for the power to eliminate all friction between the will and the world; to have the power to overcome all resistance and achieve heaven on earth, as fast as possible, by any means necessary.

The efforts of those few poor souls who spend their days trying to reason with Washington and convince it to follow some policy of “realism and restraint” are doomed. The place is busily fighting a holy war against the terms of existence.

When a Wingnut reveals himself as a Wingnut, it is because he has resisted the unrestrained exercise of power in some way. Such an act is grounds not for admiration of virtue, but for shock and suspicion: by doing so he has challenged the whole story of the new sacred order. In a real sense the Wingnut is not just unsociable but impious.

It may be that at some point in the past, when the empty throne was occupied by its rightful ruler, America’s governing institutions and the people who make their gears turn participated in a greater shared story, which subsumed their lower interests and appetites and rightly ordered them with a telos oriented toward a genuine highest good. Maybe this was God. Maybe it was the American Idea, or the Republican Ideal. Whatever it was, perhaps its very existence moderated and disciplined them. But if the baser value of power has now been elevated to this highest place, then they no longer have any internalised limits, and their quest has no stopping point. There are no longer any moral brakes on the run-away train of the state.

If so, then even all the money of the military-industrial complex definitely doesn’t run Washington. Indeed, if the military-industrial complex didn’t exist we’d have to invent it immediately just so that we could hand it all of our money.

 

A version of this essay originally appeared on The Upheaval on Substack.


N.S. Lyons is the author of The Upheaval on Substack.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

98 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

These very same arguments can be made about vaccines and the Covid consensus. The Serious Persons all believed their cause was righteous. Vaccine mandates, lockdowns, school closures and masks were absolutely necessary.

But the obscene money thrown at big pharma greased the wheels. Big pharma bought ads, hired lobbyists, supported NGOs, made political donations. They bought the opinion leaders.

Fear was absolutely necessary to create alarm, encourage compliance and drive vaccine acceptance. Opinion leaders drove this fear. And maybe they did believe every word of the consensus, but they were bought and paid for by big pharma.

The same thing can be said about the Serious Persons and the military industrial complex. Raytheon, Lockheed and others grease the wheels. They sustain and nourish the narrative the same way big pharma does, with donations and whatever financial support is necessary.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

You can run a similar argument in terms of status.
There are low status opinions an high status opinions. The MSM make it very clear which is which and no right thinking person wants to be caught holding low status opinions.
Brexit was a text book example. Quite a number of people I know seamlessly picked up the line that Brexit was a disaster voted for by people who were too stupid to have the vote.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

I do like your distinction.
I think you have to be pretty stupid to believe that a high status opinion is always identically the same as a correct (true) opinion – or the reverse (low status is always wrong). That’s obviously nonsense.
So normal and expected to have at least a few “low status opinions”.
Of course, the idea that the world was flat used to be a high status opinion.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

I thought about your point but you don’t have to form a view about whether an opinion is right to hold it. You hold it and therefore it is right.
For example, for those people who chose to believe the message that the Covid vaccine was effective it became an article of faith.
You can point out to them that we were first told it would prevent them from catching Covid and it did not. We were then told that it would reduce the chances of transmitting Covid, but it didn’t. In the last chance saloon we were told that it reduced the severity of the symptom, but where’s the proof. Yet still they believe.
Part of their embrace of the vaccine might have been driven by fear but I suspect it is in equal part due to the portrayal of those that questioned the vaccine as low status “anti-vaxers”

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

I thought about your point but you don’t have to form a view about whether an opinion is right to hold it. You hold it and therefore it is right.
For example, for those people who chose to believe the message that the Covid vaccine was effective it became an article of faith.
You can point out to them that we were first told it would prevent them from catching Covid and it did not. We were then told that it would reduce the chances of transmitting Covid, but it didn’t. In the last chance saloon we were told that it reduced the severity of the symptom, but where’s the proof. Yet still they believe.
Part of their embrace of the vaccine might have been driven by fear but I suspect it is in equal part due to the portrayal of those that questioned the vaccine as low status “anti-vaxers”

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Your last paragraph sounds about right to me.. anyone who believed Farage and Johnson has to be incredibly stupid, surely? And Serious Peo0le now see the light, or most likely saw it from the beginning!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I liked farage in European Parliament. Somebody needed to start telling them.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I liked farage in European Parliament. Somebody needed to start telling them.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

I do like your distinction.
I think you have to be pretty stupid to believe that a high status opinion is always identically the same as a correct (true) opinion – or the reverse (low status is always wrong). That’s obviously nonsense.
So normal and expected to have at least a few “low status opinions”.
Of course, the idea that the world was flat used to be a high status opinion.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Your last paragraph sounds about right to me.. anyone who believed Farage and Johnson has to be incredibly stupid, surely? And Serious Peo0le now see the light, or most likely saw it from the beginning!

Mr_ Yesterday
Mr_ Yesterday
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Brought to you buy the federal reserve.
Can you imagine if these corporations and government puppets had to fund these things by either selling products directly to consumer, pandering donations, or just calling down to the precious metals miners and saying get back down in that hole, we need 10 more tons of gold and silver to fund our next war effort!? If you want to stop endless war, you have to stop unlimited unabated taxation. QE is merely a tax which bypasses effective legislative authority. Literally everything we need to correct these issues lies in adherence to Article I Section X.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Winston Adam
Winston Adam
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Good comment Jim on a well-written but ultimately futile article. Power, not money, corrupts politicians. Money, not power, corrupts politicians. A distinction without a difference.

Last edited 1 year ago by Winston Adam
John Hellerstedt
John Hellerstedt
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I know you express a popular opinion, but it assumes that public policy was the enemy. Public policy did not put anyone in the hospital or the graveyard.
The virus was and is the enemy and the efforts of public health were aimed at combatting that enemy.
The pandemic was far more about society than about science. Society is about leadership and leadership is about truth and trust. The first pandemic POTUS botched the crucial job of crisis communication and the second pandemic POTUS had not the wit nor the gravitas nor the inclination to correct that.
Don’t fall prey to blindsight because if we do, the next pandemic may well be the last in recorded history.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

You can run a similar argument in terms of status.
There are low status opinions an high status opinions. The MSM make it very clear which is which and no right thinking person wants to be caught holding low status opinions.
Brexit was a text book example. Quite a number of people I know seamlessly picked up the line that Brexit was a disaster voted for by people who were too stupid to have the vote.

Mr_ Yesterday
Mr_ Yesterday
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Brought to you buy the federal reserve.
Can you imagine if these corporations and government puppets had to fund these things by either selling products directly to consumer, pandering donations, or just calling down to the precious metals miners and saying get back down in that hole, we need 10 more tons of gold and silver to fund our next war effort!? If you want to stop endless war, you have to stop unlimited unabated taxation. QE is merely a tax which bypasses effective legislative authority. Literally everything we need to correct these issues lies in adherence to Article I Section X.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Winston Adam
Winston Adam
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Good comment Jim on a well-written but ultimately futile article. Power, not money, corrupts politicians. Money, not power, corrupts politicians. A distinction without a difference.

Last edited 1 year ago by Winston Adam
John Hellerstedt
John Hellerstedt
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I know you express a popular opinion, but it assumes that public policy was the enemy. Public policy did not put anyone in the hospital or the graveyard.
The virus was and is the enemy and the efforts of public health were aimed at combatting that enemy.
The pandemic was far more about society than about science. Society is about leadership and leadership is about truth and trust. The first pandemic POTUS botched the crucial job of crisis communication and the second pandemic POTUS had not the wit nor the gravitas nor the inclination to correct that.
Don’t fall prey to blindsight because if we do, the next pandemic may well be the last in recorded history.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

These very same arguments can be made about vaccines and the Covid consensus. The Serious Persons all believed their cause was righteous. Vaccine mandates, lockdowns, school closures and masks were absolutely necessary.

But the obscene money thrown at big pharma greased the wheels. Big pharma bought ads, hired lobbyists, supported NGOs, made political donations. They bought the opinion leaders.

Fear was absolutely necessary to create alarm, encourage compliance and drive vaccine acceptance. Opinion leaders drove this fear. And maybe they did believe every word of the consensus, but they were bought and paid for by big pharma.

The same thing can be said about the Serious Persons and the military industrial complex. Raytheon, Lockheed and others grease the wheels. They sustain and nourish the narrative the same way big pharma does, with donations and whatever financial support is necessary.

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago

The Consensus has been finding itself in a bit of a panic. What do you do if your citizens start seeing you as corrupt, treacherous, and incompetent? What lies do you tell yourself? Corruption? Hey these people are our friends. Sure they have closer ties to political power than they are supposed to and we get less out of the money we give them every year, but they are protecting America and providing jobs! If we do not keep funneling money in to the latest underperforming overbudget weapon system, we might have Chinese invading San Francisco. Treachery? American citizens think we are the enemy? How? Look we might have lied a few times and violated their Constitutional rights over and over, but we had good intentions! We need to protect America from its enemies and anyone trying to keep us from doing so is an enemy. It’s sad that patriotism is almost dead and few people are joining the military anymore. Incompetence? You try running foreign policy. I went to an Ivy League school and I am part of several think tanks. So a couple of our latest military ventures could have turned out better. No they weren’t completely pointless or counterproductive because uh… Anyway how dare those right wing militia nuts mock our power by pointing out we lost to guys with rusty Kalashnikovs living in caves and wearing sandals. Those lefty hippies are horrible too! Where do they get off calling us evil imperialists every time Iraq is brought up? You all are just horrible ungrateful people! You don’t have what it takes to protect America!
I have said it before and I will say it again, self-righteousness is a hell of a drug.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
Chris Keating
Chris Keating
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

It certainly is.
All in all a depressing read. Forty years of failure seems no impediment to maintaining the course. Trillions are wasted every year but there seems no end in sight. They must be going to run out of other people’s money soon.

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Keating

The thing you have to understand about these people is they live in a tiny bubble with the same worldviews, went to the same schools, are part of the same think tanks, and surround themselves with the same brownnosers. Its not that they know what they need to do to fix things and just refuse to do it. These people would not even know where to begin doing things differently. All of them have a neoliberal beliefs and the idealists, realists, and noninterventionists were given the boot decades ago. So there is no longer any differing opinions. To make things worse, they also have an acute case of Never My Fault Syndrome.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

“Noninterventionists?”
Very “Realisiic”–as long as one doesn’t live in the real world, at least after 24 Feb 2022.
Indeed, just how do “Noninterventionists” oppose Russian “Interventionists” in Ukraine?
The latter’s “Consensus” seems to be a tad more expansionist than in DC.
And they never pay attention to pieces like this.
Wonder why…

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

There was a time in June when there could have been a peace deal. But Biden sent Johnson over there to crush any attempt at peaceful negotiation.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

They don’t. Ukraine and Russia are the business of Ukraine and Russia. That this administration is pouring billions into Ukraine for a good laundering is the only reason the US is involved at all, I don’t care what Serious People in Washington tell themselves.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Ukraine is the business of every country that borders it.
Russia gets no special privilege.

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

You do realize that America and Russia almost touch each other and Ukraine is not anywhere near us? Just thought I would point that out in regards to your blanket statement there.

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

You do realize that America and Russia almost touch each other and Ukraine is not anywhere near us? Just thought I would point that out in regards to your blanket statement there.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

Ukraine is the business of every country that borders it.
Russia gets no special privilege.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

You think Russia is more interventionist than the US? What? ..ok, I get it; it’s a joke, right?

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Transnistria
Abkhazia
Chechnya
South Ossetia
Crimea
Donbas
Syria
Libya
Mali
Ukraine…
Each of those was–or is–a hot war, designed to bring back the Russian Empire in some form.

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

I don’t believe Syria, Libya and Mali were ever part of the USSR.. all the others were. I note you distinguish between Donbas, Crimea and Ukraine. Is that deliberate or is your geography poor? I’m pretty sure none of those states is part of the USA or anywhere close to the Americas for that matter.
So my point stands: Russia has never threatened the US except that one time in 1962, ie Cuba which ended before it began thanks to the Russians opting for peace. I’m no apologist for Russia or Putin but do see a deeper level of depravity in the US. The death toll in Iraq stands at 1 million, half of them children… “a price worth 0aying” says Madalene Albright!! How degenerate is that?
US interference in Central and South America is endless and disgusting, the CIA murdering freely elected leaders and the US then supporting the lowest form of terrorist there.. imposing sick, degenerate tyrants that the US can then “do business with”, ie who will cooperate in the exploitation of that country’s people.
In addition the US has invaded/ bombed several countries all over the world (with a death toll of 5 million) that clearly present zero risk to the US? The count in the last 50 years is over 100 acts of aggression…
Why is that?

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

You are correct Liam, however the alternatives are even worse ie the Chinese or the Russians being the dominant power on our planet……..

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

You are correct Liam, however the alternatives are even worse ie the Chinese or the Russians being the dominant power on our planet……..

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

I don’t believe Syria, Libya and Mali were ever part of the USSR.. all the others were. I note you distinguish between Donbas, Crimea and Ukraine. Is that deliberate or is your geography poor? I’m pretty sure none of those states is part of the USA or anywhere close to the Americas for that matter.
So my point stands: Russia has never threatened the US except that one time in 1962, ie Cuba which ended before it began thanks to the Russians opting for peace. I’m no apologist for Russia or Putin but do see a deeper level of depravity in the US. The death toll in Iraq stands at 1 million, half of them children… “a price worth 0aying” says Madalene Albright!! How degenerate is that?
US interference in Central and South America is endless and disgusting, the CIA murdering freely elected leaders and the US then supporting the lowest form of terrorist there.. imposing sick, degenerate tyrants that the US can then “do business with”, ie who will cooperate in the exploitation of that country’s people.
In addition the US has invaded/ bombed several countries all over the world (with a death toll of 5 million) that clearly present zero risk to the US? The count in the last 50 years is over 100 acts of aggression…
Why is that?

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Transnistria
Abkhazia
Chechnya
South Ossetia
Crimea
Donbas
Syria
Libya
Mali
Ukraine…
Each of those was–or is–a hot war, designed to bring back the Russian Empire in some form.

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

There was a time in June when there could have been a peace deal. But Biden sent Johnson over there to crush any attempt at peaceful negotiation.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

They don’t. Ukraine and Russia are the business of Ukraine and Russia. That this administration is pouring billions into Ukraine for a good laundering is the only reason the US is involved at all, I don’t care what Serious People in Washington tell themselves.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

You think Russia is more interventionist than the US? What? ..ok, I get it; it’s a joke, right?

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

“Noninterventionists?”
Very “Realisiic”–as long as one doesn’t live in the real world, at least after 24 Feb 2022.
Indeed, just how do “Noninterventionists” oppose Russian “Interventionists” in Ukraine?
The latter’s “Consensus” seems to be a tad more expansionist than in DC.
And they never pay attention to pieces like this.
Wonder why…

Simon Blanchard
Simon Blanchard
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Keating

Unlikely they’ll run out of money. They’re in the unique position of being able to just keep printing it. For the foreseeable future anyway.

Mr_ Yesterday
Mr_ Yesterday
1 year ago

It’s the ‘first receivers of money’ argument. The velocity of cash fiat.
One more time; Where in the hell does the actual money come from?
If the whole world is in debt, to whom are we indebted?
Article I Section X
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Mr_ Yesterday
Mr_ Yesterday
1 year ago

It’s the ‘first receivers of money’ argument. The velocity of cash fiat.
One more time; Where in the hell does the actual money come from?
If the whole world is in debt, to whom are we indebted?
Article I Section X
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Keating

The thing you have to understand about these people is they live in a tiny bubble with the same worldviews, went to the same schools, are part of the same think tanks, and surround themselves with the same brownnosers. Its not that they know what they need to do to fix things and just refuse to do it. These people would not even know where to begin doing things differently. All of them have a neoliberal beliefs and the idealists, realists, and noninterventionists were given the boot decades ago. So there is no longer any differing opinions. To make things worse, they also have an acute case of Never My Fault Syndrome.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
Simon Blanchard
Simon Blanchard
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Keating

Unlikely they’ll run out of money. They’re in the unique position of being able to just keep printing it. For the foreseeable future anyway.

Chris Keating
Chris Keating
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

It certainly is.
All in all a depressing read. Forty years of failure seems no impediment to maintaining the course. Trillions are wasted every year but there seems no end in sight. They must be going to run out of other people’s money soon.

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago

The Consensus has been finding itself in a bit of a panic. What do you do if your citizens start seeing you as corrupt, treacherous, and incompetent? What lies do you tell yourself? Corruption? Hey these people are our friends. Sure they have closer ties to political power than they are supposed to and we get less out of the money we give them every year, but they are protecting America and providing jobs! If we do not keep funneling money in to the latest underperforming overbudget weapon system, we might have Chinese invading San Francisco. Treachery? American citizens think we are the enemy? How? Look we might have lied a few times and violated their Constitutional rights over and over, but we had good intentions! We need to protect America from its enemies and anyone trying to keep us from doing so is an enemy. It’s sad that patriotism is almost dead and few people are joining the military anymore. Incompetence? You try running foreign policy. I went to an Ivy League school and I am part of several think tanks. So a couple of our latest military ventures could have turned out better. No they weren’t completely pointless or counterproductive because uh… Anyway how dare those right wing militia nuts mock our power by pointing out we lost to guys with rusty Kalashnikovs living in caves and wearing sandals. Those lefty hippies are horrible too! Where do they get off calling us evil imperialists every time Iraq is brought up? You all are just horrible ungrateful people! You don’t have what it takes to protect America!
I have said it before and I will say it again, self-righteousness is a hell of a drug.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

Excellent, excellent discussion. One rarely encounters corruption or evil in the form of a malicious conspiracy of mustache twirling villains in a smoke filled room or a group of stern faced men in black suits sitting around an expensive table deciding which evil plan they can use to get rich and take over the world. One encounters it in the form of a mindless mob, a group of ostensibly reasoning, thinking, autonomous individuals nonetheless behaving as little more than a herd of stampeding wildebeests. What motivates the herd is usually unobjectionable and sometimes very appealing, but that hardly matters to the unfortunate sops who stand in its path. The herd will trample anyhing and everything in the way, be it human freedoms or human lives in its pursuit of the goal. The herd’s members will engage in the usual social posturing, racing one another, each striving to be at the front of the line, thus driving one another and the whole herd to ever more dangerous speeds. The herd is not controlled by any one individual. The lead member can attempt to turn one way or the other, but the herd may pay no heed or another may use the opportunity to usurp the leader and turn the herd in still another direction. The herd sustains itself. Even if one or a few leave the herd, others will take their place. If the herd crosses a river and many drown, it does not matter because the herd continues. If some cannot keep up and fall to be trampled, it only makes the herd stronger. Thus, the herd sustains itself independently of its members. It becomes a beast in its own right, a mindless, soulless, thing driven by whatever purpose to move forward heedless of consequence. So it always is with herds. Whether the Catholic inquisition or the Roman Legions or the the American military industrial complex, the herd takes on a life of its own, and, regardless of intention, leaves a trail of pain and casualties in its wake. Our modern society is positively rife with herds. I will not call it herd-ism, because the ism would imply a kind of conscious reasoning that is alien to herd behavior. It is difficult to credibly blame any person or group for herd actions, yet for the sake of the herds members and for its victims, someone must be held to account, and only the most powerful members bear enough responsibility for any level of guilt to be assigned. In this sense, it does not matter that the elites, the bureaucrats, the establishment, the consensus, or whatever other term one wants to use is not consciously plotting to ruin our civilization through war and greed. They must be held to account all the same.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Very true; a good analogy. Was there ever so great a need for courageous independent press and ever such a shortage.. where would we be without Unherd and the other truly independent press such as DDN? MSM is a sick joke these days with its very own group think on what/how to publish to advance one’s career or save a job.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Very true; a good analogy. Was there ever so great a need for courageous independent press and ever such a shortage.. where would we be without Unherd and the other truly independent press such as DDN? MSM is a sick joke these days with its very own group think on what/how to publish to advance one’s career or save a job.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

Excellent, excellent discussion. One rarely encounters corruption or evil in the form of a malicious conspiracy of mustache twirling villains in a smoke filled room or a group of stern faced men in black suits sitting around an expensive table deciding which evil plan they can use to get rich and take over the world. One encounters it in the form of a mindless mob, a group of ostensibly reasoning, thinking, autonomous individuals nonetheless behaving as little more than a herd of stampeding wildebeests. What motivates the herd is usually unobjectionable and sometimes very appealing, but that hardly matters to the unfortunate sops who stand in its path. The herd will trample anyhing and everything in the way, be it human freedoms or human lives in its pursuit of the goal. The herd’s members will engage in the usual social posturing, racing one another, each striving to be at the front of the line, thus driving one another and the whole herd to ever more dangerous speeds. The herd is not controlled by any one individual. The lead member can attempt to turn one way or the other, but the herd may pay no heed or another may use the opportunity to usurp the leader and turn the herd in still another direction. The herd sustains itself. Even if one or a few leave the herd, others will take their place. If the herd crosses a river and many drown, it does not matter because the herd continues. If some cannot keep up and fall to be trampled, it only makes the herd stronger. Thus, the herd sustains itself independently of its members. It becomes a beast in its own right, a mindless, soulless, thing driven by whatever purpose to move forward heedless of consequence. So it always is with herds. Whether the Catholic inquisition or the Roman Legions or the the American military industrial complex, the herd takes on a life of its own, and, regardless of intention, leaves a trail of pain and casualties in its wake. Our modern society is positively rife with herds. I will not call it herd-ism, because the ism would imply a kind of conscious reasoning that is alien to herd behavior. It is difficult to credibly blame any person or group for herd actions, yet for the sake of the herds members and for its victims, someone must be held to account, and only the most powerful members bear enough responsibility for any level of guilt to be assigned. In this sense, it does not matter that the elites, the bureaucrats, the establishment, the consensus, or whatever other term one wants to use is not consciously plotting to ruin our civilization through war and greed. They must be held to account all the same.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

A glimmer of reality…but still only a glimmer.
The problem is that the writer looks at the US in a vacuum.
One might thus propose a better model: Every other major nation in the 19th and 20th Cs had their own “Consensuses”: Imperialism, Communism, Nazism, Maoism, Islamism, and now “Putinism” and “Xi-ism.” In each case, America had to respond in some way, and–surprise, surprise!–they usually wound up creating some form of “consensus.”
But that’s because ALL states act this way. And the only way to eliminate such competition is to eliminate sovereign states.
Since there are close to 200 of them, good luck!
Naturally, we will always have the “Dumbed-Down Marxist” explanation, that “they’re all only in it for the money.” But that’s because most Marxists simply impose their crackpot idea on everything, dubbing any counter evidence as a “bourgeois” smokescreen.
Again, ALL states act this way, and have done so for quite a while.
So…welcome to the last 5000 years of human history.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Three things strike me as incorrect in your overly simplistic assessment:
1. You assume all states spend vast sums on militarism. The vast majority of states are small states and spend very little on militarism: eg Ireland. We see no need whatever to engage in militarism. The need for militarism has little to do with defence and far more to do with aggression and imperialism!
2. You assume the arms race is required just in case your country is invaded or at least threatened. The vast bulk of such aggression took place with little risk of that, eg US wars and aggression (c100 cases) in the last 50 years despite zero risk to the US itself. US spending is so far ahead of every other country it cannot be regarded as “keeping up” by any stretch of the imagination. It is simply for world domination.
3. Suggesting that it is all for the money (plus money’s ugly twin sister, power) must be wrong because it is dumbed down Marxism is a huge stretch. It could be just all for the money due to the US’s crazed obsession with money irrespective of any other ideology. Indeed it is!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Well O’Mahony old chap, at least we can agree on something!

“Ireland. We see no need whatever to engage in militarism.”

No too busy shooting people in the back and blowing up supermarkets and pubs and then running to the USA for asylum as I recall.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Mr_ Yesterday
Mr_ Yesterday
1 year ago

Nah, they’re imasuclating themselves with the lgbt propaganda of late. It’s a bomb with much more widespread devastation, because it destroys peoples minds, their dignity follows.
There is a war on, for your mind.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr_ Yesterday

Yes indeed, and I thank you for reminding me of this insidious‘campaign’.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr_ Yesterday

Yes indeed, and I thank you for reminding me of this insidious‘campaign’.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

You have the wrong country there Charlie my boy! Those things occurred in NI which has been in the UK for the last 700 years, and still is by the way! Had it been in Irish hands none of that would have happened (because in our 26 of the 32 counties it DIDN’T happen did it?) It happened in your country on your watch so take the shame.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

“The Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 17 May 1974”. 33 Dead, 300 Injured, the record


..so far!

I presume you were ‘in nappies’ at the time, otherwise you should have remembered that O’Mahony old chap.

QED?

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Those atrocities were perpetrated by British terrorists, at least that’s what they called themselves (eschewing the term Irish at all costs). You really are ignorant aren’t you Charlie.. a little learning is indeed a dangerous thing. Have you checked the Atlas to see who governs NI? ..with all its attendant racism, religious bigotry, hatred and political gerrymandering? Under whose watch? Blighty’s old boy! Not a Paddy in sight except as victims.. wtf do you expect when you abuse half a million people in their own country for 50 years! Meek acquiescence? In their shoes would that be the Stanhope way? I think not..

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Keep digging, it’s hilarious!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Keep digging, it’s hilarious!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

Those atrocities were perpetrated by British terrorists, at least that’s what they called themselves (eschewing the term Irish at all costs). You really are ignorant aren’t you Charlie.. a little learning is indeed a dangerous thing. Have you checked the Atlas to see who governs NI? ..with all its attendant racism, religious bigotry, hatred and political gerrymandering? Under whose watch? Blighty’s old boy! Not a Paddy in sight except as victims.. wtf do you expect when you abuse half a million people in their own country for 50 years! Meek acquiescence? In their shoes would that be the Stanhope way? I think not..

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

“The Dublin and Monaghan bombings of 17 May 1974”. 33 Dead, 300 Injured, the record


..so far!

I presume you were ‘in nappies’ at the time, otherwise you should have remembered that O’Mahony old chap.

QED?

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Mr_ Yesterday
Mr_ Yesterday
1 year ago

Nah, they’re imasuclating themselves with the lgbt propaganda of late. It’s a bomb with much more widespread devastation, because it destroys peoples minds, their dignity follows.
There is a war on, for your mind.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

You have the wrong country there Charlie my boy! Those things occurred in NI which has been in the UK for the last 700 years, and still is by the way! Had it been in Irish hands none of that would have happened (because in our 26 of the 32 counties it DIDN’T happen did it?) It happened in your country on your watch so take the shame.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I think there’s a distinction between “world domination” and protecting your nation’s interests. My take on the USA is that it’s really concerned about the second and not the first. No doubt it takes a lot of flak because it’s very good at it.
US military dominance has – as some smarter commentators have observed – brought us a long era of free trade where shipping can move freely and easily around the world. Which, on the whole, benefits everyone.
If the USA is as “imperialist” as you suggest, where are all its colonies ? Why isn’t it out there conquering new territories ? Yes, it has military bases in a lot of countries, but that it far from the same thing.
Part of the reason that you can get away with spending so little on defence in Ireland is, I suggest, that you live under the US umbrella and get a lot of “free defence” that way. I believe that UK military flights also patrol some zones of interest to Ireland. I wouldn’t be comlaining too loudly …

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

But you’re quite wrong. Neocolonialism has replaced old fashioned military conquest and so the US controls countries just as much as if it had invaded them. Perhaps even more with its subculture as well as its threats if sanctions, and 800 threatening bases around the world etc.
Notwithstanding, the US has seen the need for several invasions to assert its hegemonic power (100 or so in the last 50 years).
Do you seriously expect me to believe the oceans would awash with pirates if the US navy wasn’t patrolling them? Are you serious? I cannot recall a single Irish ship being attacked by pirates in the last 100 years, let alone a US naval vessel coming to its rescue.
“Protecting American interests” is merely a euphemism for world dominance so that it can exploit its vassal states in the same way the British Empire looted its colonies, and still does through neocolonialism. US economic power is vast but now at risk of being challenged by China whose Belt & Road Initiative is a more benign form of neocolonialism.
The small nations depend on the UN for protection though by and large we in Ireland have no need of it, thank God.. Instead we provide the world’s finest peacekeeping troops for the same UN.

Last edited 1 year ago by Liam O'Mahony
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Seriously? Un ‘peace keeping’ troops are notorious for actually not being that nice. You might want to research their catalogue of seriously awful fu*k ups. The UN is worse than America in my opinion.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0018ljw

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Not the Irish troops.. check it out. Maybe you can find one or two bad apples but I doubt even that.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Fair enough, I’m not trying to batter the Irish, just the UN. Still, the un peace keeping missions are normally more of a sham than American intervention. That’s saying something.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Actually the Irish UN troops, (along with our good selves) have performed very well, and taken quite a few casualties in doing so.

However for most of the ‘others’ you are, sadly, absolutely correct Ms Emery.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Thank you. I wasn’t sure on the Irish troops I’ll be honest, I don’t like the un force much but I’m glad the Irish and our good selves are at least doing a good job. Can I ask, do you think the un is worth keeping or do you think it might be past its sell by date?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

We’ll probably better the ‘devil you know’

It’s hard to conceive of an alternative.

However I think the entire thing (Military UN) should be turned over to the Gurkhas, probably the finest troops available, and Nepal could certainly do with the business
.
Sadly it will never happen.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Well I wasn’t expecting that. The gurkas I mean. Fair enough. If that was possible though it would be a good idea.
It’s another place corruption seems rife, the way they carried on Haiti was really awful, but you know, nothing is going to be perfect, mistakes get made etc. so you have to work with what you have I suppose. I haven’t got a better idea either tbh.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Almost uniquely the Gurkhas are ‘disciplined’ troops, and oddly that makes ALL the difference.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Almost uniquely the Gurkhas are ‘disciplined’ troops, and oddly that makes ALL the difference.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Well I wasn’t expecting that. The gurkas I mean. Fair enough. If that was possible though it would be a good idea.
It’s another place corruption seems rife, the way they carried on Haiti was really awful, but you know, nothing is going to be perfect, mistakes get made etc. so you have to work with what you have I suppose. I haven’t got a better idea either tbh.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

We’ll probably better the ‘devil you know’

It’s hard to conceive of an alternative.

However I think the entire thing (Military UN) should be turned over to the Gurkhas, probably the finest troops available, and Nepal could certainly do with the business
.
Sadly it will never happen.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Thank you. I wasn’t sure on the Irish troops I’ll be honest, I don’t like the un force much but I’m glad the Irish and our good selves are at least doing a good job. Can I ask, do you think the un is worth keeping or do you think it might be past its sell by date?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Actually the Irish UN troops, (along with our good selves) have performed very well, and taken quite a few casualties in doing so.

However for most of the ‘others’ you are, sadly, absolutely correct Ms Emery.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I’ll grant you that Mahony old fruit.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Fair enough, I’m not trying to batter the Irish, just the UN. Still, the un peace keeping missions are normally more of a sham than American intervention. That’s saying something.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I’ll grant you that Mahony old fruit.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Not the Irish troops.. check it out. Maybe you can find one or two bad apples but I doubt even that.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Seriously? Un ‘peace keeping’ troops are notorious for actually not being that nice. You might want to research their catalogue of seriously awful fu*k ups. The UN is worse than America in my opinion.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0018ljw

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

I don’t think Liam O’Mahoney remembers very far back. If it weren’t for U.S. militarism, his name would likely be something like Manfred von Richthofen.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Correction. If it weren’t for the alliance of the UK, Soviets and the US. That’s the big three. There are many more allied powers I could mention. Thank you.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Correction. If it weren’t for the alliance of the UK, Soviets and the US. That’s the big three. There are many more allied powers I could mention. Thank you.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

But you’re quite wrong. Neocolonialism has replaced old fashioned military conquest and so the US controls countries just as much as if it had invaded them. Perhaps even more with its subculture as well as its threats if sanctions, and 800 threatening bases around the world etc.
Notwithstanding, the US has seen the need for several invasions to assert its hegemonic power (100 or so in the last 50 years).
Do you seriously expect me to believe the oceans would awash with pirates if the US navy wasn’t patrolling them? Are you serious? I cannot recall a single Irish ship being attacked by pirates in the last 100 years, let alone a US naval vessel coming to its rescue.
“Protecting American interests” is merely a euphemism for world dominance so that it can exploit its vassal states in the same way the British Empire looted its colonies, and still does through neocolonialism. US economic power is vast but now at risk of being challenged by China whose Belt & Road Initiative is a more benign form of neocolonialism.
The small nations depend on the UN for protection though by and large we in Ireland have no need of it, thank God.. Instead we provide the world’s finest peacekeeping troops for the same UN.

Last edited 1 year ago by Liam O'Mahony
Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

I don’t think Liam O’Mahoney remembers very far back. If it weren’t for U.S. militarism, his name would likely be something like Manfred von Richthofen.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Oddly the US really does have nation states eager to take over the role the US has played since WW2. Why does Russia and now China maintain rather huge arsenal of missiles? US invades to counter what it perceives as threats. Pity it really didn’t invade Libya because the aftermath might have been better. Iraq is a mess because the US couldn’t counter Iran. Afghanistan might have worked itself out for the better had Biden not withdrawn so foolishly. Vietnam after a few bad years is recovering nicely. South Korea is now a rising star.
Meanwhile the world is unlikely to end up in WW3 with a death toll in millions, perhaps because the US became a sort of world police – not that it really wanted that. After WW2 the US was insanely rich via it’s productive might and a lot of sacrifice. Over time that wealth was transferred back into other’s economies. China has accumulated much of the US wealth making a few in US even wealthier. Sadly China has decided it must have a huge military now to match the US. One might ask why?
The US continues to muddle along with largely fools in charge. At the moment the world seems on a similar path with seniors refusing to retire. Sadly some of the new younger leaders appear even less capable to serve the public but stoke their own egos. This article suggests that leaders are power hungry as are their immediate staff, but I think they are simply greedy and don’t want the gravy train to slow. Current financial conditions might suggest the train will be stuck for a time.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Hardee Hodges

Wow.. you are so wrong in almost everything you assert to be the case. Indeed the direct opposite is true in some instances…
Russia and China need to defend themselves against US aggression. There has not been one single act of aggression towards the USA by either country. The direct opposite is the case with the US waging war on Russia by proxy and US posturing in the South China Sea. Last time I looked I saw no Russian war on the US and no sign of the Chinese navy in the Caribbean!
How unlucky can you be waging all those wars against small nations and been beaten soundly in every one! ..and none of the death and utter destruction is any of the US’s fault! What? Are you insane?
You give naivety a bad name!!
And the wealth of the US is all thanks to its own endeavours while the wealth of other nations has nothing to do with their own endeavours but instead is due to what? The largesse of the US! What a joke! China pulled 800 million of its own people (exploited by foreign powers for centuries including the US) out of poverty while in the US 100 million were driven into poverty by its own billionaire class!
Wake up before it’s too late. Try not to be such a sucker for MSM propaganda! Try not to be so gullible. Look up a few facts FGS!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Hardee Hodges

Wow.. you are so wrong in almost everything you assert to be the case. Indeed the direct opposite is true in some instances…
Russia and China need to defend themselves against US aggression. There has not been one single act of aggression towards the USA by either country. The direct opposite is the case with the US waging war on Russia by proxy and US posturing in the South China Sea. Last time I looked I saw no Russian war on the US and no sign of the Chinese navy in the Caribbean!
How unlucky can you be waging all those wars against small nations and been beaten soundly in every one! ..and none of the death and utter destruction is any of the US’s fault! What? Are you insane?
You give naivety a bad name!!
And the wealth of the US is all thanks to its own endeavours while the wealth of other nations has nothing to do with their own endeavours but instead is due to what? The largesse of the US! What a joke! China pulled 800 million of its own people (exploited by foreign powers for centuries including the US) out of poverty while in the US 100 million were driven into poverty by its own billionaire class!
Wake up before it’s too late. Try not to be such a sucker for MSM propaganda! Try not to be so gullible. Look up a few facts FGS!

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

The most deliberately naive statement on this site.
You DO know that there is something called NATO standing between Ireland and Russia? And that, after 24 Feb 2022, Russia would be in Germany without NATO?
If Ireland were a Baltic country you’d be squealing bloody murder to join.
And sorry, when you ignore 3000 dead Americans in a single attack as the impetus of the Iraq War, you are just being willfully stupid.
Pls try to make some sense next time.

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

We are not members of NATO as we are not under threat (last time I looked). We have always had good relations with Russia ever since their revolution. There isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest we are under any threat from Russia, or China or the US (but only because we do US’s bidding).
The 3,000 US dead in 911 were murdered by not one single Iraqi but rather by a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians! So why didn’t you invade those countries? Bin Laden resided not in Iraq but in Afghanistan where he had been supplied weapons by the US to fight Russians years earlier!
Iraq, under Saddam was probably the most anti-Alqaida country on the planet. Indeed he ruthlessly executed dozens of Alqaida terrorists. Saddam and his best buddy Donald Rumsfeld had a falling out over oil – that and that alone was the reason for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Don’t you guys know anything?

Last edited 1 year ago by Liam O'Mahony
Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Thank you for finally stating the obvious.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

We are not members of NATO as we are not under threat (last time I looked). We have always had good relations with Russia ever since their revolution. There isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest we are under any threat from Russia, or China or the US (but only because we do US’s bidding).
The 3,000 US dead in 911 were murdered by not one single Iraqi but rather by a bunch of Saudis and Egyptians! So why didn’t you invade those countries? Bin Laden resided not in Iraq but in Afghanistan where he had been supplied weapons by the US to fight Russians years earlier!
Iraq, under Saddam was probably the most anti-Alqaida country on the planet. Indeed he ruthlessly executed dozens of Alqaida terrorists. Saddam and his best buddy Donald Rumsfeld had a falling out over oil – that and that alone was the reason for the illegal invasion of Iraq. Don’t you guys know anything?

Last edited 1 year ago by Liam O'Mahony
Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Thank you for finally stating the obvious.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

#1 was a good one! Ireland seeing no need for militarism is like a grade school football team seeing no need to play Manchester United.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Well O’Mahony old chap, at least we can agree on something!

“Ireland. We see no need whatever to engage in militarism.”

No too busy shooting people in the back and blowing up supermarkets and pubs and then running to the USA for asylum as I recall.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

I think there’s a distinction between “world domination” and protecting your nation’s interests. My take on the USA is that it’s really concerned about the second and not the first. No doubt it takes a lot of flak because it’s very good at it.
US military dominance has – as some smarter commentators have observed – brought us a long era of free trade where shipping can move freely and easily around the world. Which, on the whole, benefits everyone.
If the USA is as “imperialist” as you suggest, where are all its colonies ? Why isn’t it out there conquering new territories ? Yes, it has military bases in a lot of countries, but that it far from the same thing.
Part of the reason that you can get away with spending so little on defence in Ireland is, I suggest, that you live under the US umbrella and get a lot of “free defence” that way. I believe that UK military flights also patrol some zones of interest to Ireland. I wouldn’t be comlaining too loudly …

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Oddly the US really does have nation states eager to take over the role the US has played since WW2. Why does Russia and now China maintain rather huge arsenal of missiles? US invades to counter what it perceives as threats. Pity it really didn’t invade Libya because the aftermath might have been better. Iraq is a mess because the US couldn’t counter Iran. Afghanistan might have worked itself out for the better had Biden not withdrawn so foolishly. Vietnam after a few bad years is recovering nicely. South Korea is now a rising star.
Meanwhile the world is unlikely to end up in WW3 with a death toll in millions, perhaps because the US became a sort of world police – not that it really wanted that. After WW2 the US was insanely rich via it’s productive might and a lot of sacrifice. Over time that wealth was transferred back into other’s economies. China has accumulated much of the US wealth making a few in US even wealthier. Sadly China has decided it must have a huge military now to match the US. One might ask why?
The US continues to muddle along with largely fools in charge. At the moment the world seems on a similar path with seniors refusing to retire. Sadly some of the new younger leaders appear even less capable to serve the public but stoke their own egos. This article suggests that leaders are power hungry as are their immediate staff, but I think they are simply greedy and don’t want the gravy train to slow. Current financial conditions might suggest the train will be stuck for a time.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

The most deliberately naive statement on this site.
You DO know that there is something called NATO standing between Ireland and Russia? And that, after 24 Feb 2022, Russia would be in Germany without NATO?
If Ireland were a Baltic country you’d be squealing bloody murder to join.
And sorry, when you ignore 3000 dead Americans in a single attack as the impetus of the Iraq War, you are just being willfully stupid.
Pls try to make some sense next time.

Last edited 1 year ago by martin logan
Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

#1 was a good one! Ireland seeing no need for militarism is like a grade school football team seeing no need to play Manchester United.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Quite right. This is nothing more than the continuing history, which began in the Old Testament, of mankind who, in cycles that last between a hundred years or many hundreds of years, alternates between following God’s way or man’s way.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Three things strike me as incorrect in your overly simplistic assessment:
1. You assume all states spend vast sums on militarism. The vast majority of states are small states and spend very little on militarism: eg Ireland. We see no need whatever to engage in militarism. The need for militarism has little to do with defence and far more to do with aggression and imperialism!
2. You assume the arms race is required just in case your country is invaded or at least threatened. The vast bulk of such aggression took place with little risk of that, eg US wars and aggression (c100 cases) in the last 50 years despite zero risk to the US itself. US spending is so far ahead of every other country it cannot be regarded as “keeping up” by any stretch of the imagination. It is simply for world domination.
3. Suggesting that it is all for the money (plus money’s ugly twin sister, power) must be wrong because it is dumbed down Marxism is a huge stretch. It could be just all for the money due to the US’s crazed obsession with money irrespective of any other ideology. Indeed it is!

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Quite right. This is nothing more than the continuing history, which began in the Old Testament, of mankind who, in cycles that last between a hundred years or many hundreds of years, alternates between following God’s way or man’s way.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

A glimmer of reality…but still only a glimmer.
The problem is that the writer looks at the US in a vacuum.
One might thus propose a better model: Every other major nation in the 19th and 20th Cs had their own “Consensuses”: Imperialism, Communism, Nazism, Maoism, Islamism, and now “Putinism” and “Xi-ism.” In each case, America had to respond in some way, and–surprise, surprise!–they usually wound up creating some form of “consensus.”
But that’s because ALL states act this way. And the only way to eliminate such competition is to eliminate sovereign states.
Since there are close to 200 of them, good luck!
Naturally, we will always have the “Dumbed-Down Marxist” explanation, that “they’re all only in it for the money.” But that’s because most Marxists simply impose their crackpot idea on everything, dubbing any counter evidence as a “bourgeois” smokescreen.
Again, ALL states act this way, and have done so for quite a while.
So…welcome to the last 5000 years of human history.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Come off it! War, hot or Cold War is great for US jobs, millions of them.

Have we already forgotten what happened after 1918? The US then plunged into a self-righteous ‘peace dividend’, but the 1922 Washington Disarmament Conference was all too soon followed by the financial crash of 1929. Then it was Steinbeck and “Okies” until, ‘heaven be praised’ those idiot Brits got themselves involved in yet another war, and guess who lent them the cash and the tools to continue it? Oh happy days of maximum production for US Industry.

Fortunately wise council prevented history repeating itself in 1945 and very soon we had a new enemy, “Reds under the bed” was the battle cry! The all too predictable collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 caused a minor panic, but fortunately a new enemy hove in sight, one distinguished by sporting large beards and wearing flip flops. Here the ridiculous battle cry was to be “The War on Terror”. Pathetic as is this enemy was, it sustained massive ‘defence’ spending for a further generation, thus those happy days continued.

Then last year as various Afghans practiced their ‘ free fall’ techniques from the last US aircraft departing Kabul, I began to wonder where the next war would be. I didn’t have long to wait, a mere six months in fact, before the whistle blew and it was kick-off in the Ukraine.

“War (hot or cold) is the Father of all things”.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

That military spending actually retards the growth of economies obviously proves that capitalists don’t follow their own best interests, and instead mindlessly look for enemies to fight.
So it’s all one giant conspiracy.
Overseen by George Soros…or is it Hillary?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

I thought it ‘stimulated’ the economy rather than retarding it.
Just another ‘Keynesian’ way of pumping ‘other peoples money’ into the economy?

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

So in this cynical, somewhat ironic view of yours, the U.S. and other global powers should stop pretending to anything beyond a warlike motive, “stimulating growth” at an affordable cost in blood, and mostly foreign blood at that?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Yes, preferably.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Gotta admit: I’ve come to appreciate your terse audacity, at times.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

Great power politics is a bloody game that requires bloody acts and bloody mindedness. It’s not something most of us would aspire to. Failing to engage in great power politics, however, is also problematic because then someone else gets power and and uses it to benefit themselves. It is the legitimate business of any government, king, or emperor to pursue the interests of its/his own people even at the expense of other nations. Everybody being nice to each other and getting along has never been a choice. The world does not work that way. The spreading democracy and world peace nonsense is a show to keep the useful idiots in line. Intelligent hard hearted people like ourselves could do without the pretense and appreciate geopolitical strategy for the bloody business that it is, but we’re not really the target audience. It’s calibrated for the lowest common denominator of human intelligence and critical thinking. It’s for the snowflakes raised on self-esteem and participation trophies who have been sufficiently insulated from the harshness of the world since childhood. They need a spoonful of sugar to swallow the nastiness of running an empire.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Si vis pacem, para bellum,*as Vegetius so succinctly put it.

As always the Ancients said it best and got there first.

(*If you wish for peace prepare for war.)

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

What if you start to suspect the Empire no longer has your country’s best interests at heart or is a threat to its citizenry? That is the line that becomes inexcusable in great power politics.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Indeed. There are legitimate questions to be asked, but I think the military industrial complex is less guilty of this than other quarters. I would point out that the military industrial complex is an altogether different blob than the neoliberal globalist blob that I regularly complain about. They are ultimately accountable through civilian military control and the power of the budget. The globalist corporate blob is accountable to nobody but profit and thanks to the free movement of money and people, has become a thing entirely outside anybody’s control, and that is a bigger problem at the moment. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I can live with bloated defense contractors that employ Americans before I can live with multinational corporations that employ the cheapest labor available anywhere in order to increase their own wealth and power.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Indeed. There are legitimate questions to be asked, but I think the military industrial complex is less guilty of this than other quarters. I would point out that the military industrial complex is an altogether different blob than the neoliberal globalist blob that I regularly complain about. They are ultimately accountable through civilian military control and the power of the budget. The globalist corporate blob is accountable to nobody but profit and thanks to the free movement of money and people, has become a thing entirely outside anybody’s control, and that is a bigger problem at the moment. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I can live with bloated defense contractors that employ Americans before I can live with multinational corporations that employ the cheapest labor available anywhere in order to increase their own wealth and power.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Si vis pacem, para bellum,*as Vegetius so succinctly put it.

As always the Ancients said it best and got there first.

(*If you wish for peace prepare for war.)

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

What if you start to suspect the Empire no longer has your country’s best interests at heart or is a threat to its citizenry? That is the line that becomes inexcusable in great power politics.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

Gotta admit: I’ve come to appreciate your terse audacity, at times.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

Great power politics is a bloody game that requires bloody acts and bloody mindedness. It’s not something most of us would aspire to. Failing to engage in great power politics, however, is also problematic because then someone else gets power and and uses it to benefit themselves. It is the legitimate business of any government, king, or emperor to pursue the interests of its/his own people even at the expense of other nations. Everybody being nice to each other and getting along has never been a choice. The world does not work that way. The spreading democracy and world peace nonsense is a show to keep the useful idiots in line. Intelligent hard hearted people like ourselves could do without the pretense and appreciate geopolitical strategy for the bloody business that it is, but we’re not really the target audience. It’s calibrated for the lowest common denominator of human intelligence and critical thinking. It’s for the snowflakes raised on self-esteem and participation trophies who have been sufficiently insulated from the harshness of the world since childhood. They need a spoonful of sugar to swallow the nastiness of running an empire.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

Yes, preferably.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

You thought wrong.
Spending on arms only creates deficits and inflation. the only time the US had the glimmer of a budget surplus was when it stopped spending on arms with the fall of the Soviet Union.
True, it would be a much better world if Marxist ideas actually made sense.
But they don’t.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Thank you!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

Thank you!

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

So in this cynical, somewhat ironic view of yours, the U.S. and other global powers should stop pretending to anything beyond a warlike motive, “stimulating growth” at an affordable cost in blood, and mostly foreign blood at that?

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

You thought wrong.
Spending on arms only creates deficits and inflation. the only time the US had the glimmer of a budget surplus was when it stopped spending on arms with the fall of the Soviet Union.
True, it would be a much better world if Marxist ideas actually made sense.
But they don’t.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

it’s an unwitting conspiracy, ie simply an example of like mindedness; a twisted view of human behaviour which justifies the money/power grab associated with it. It’s as patriotic as xenophobia and racism. How nice to be able to encompass it all in the gilded frame of self-righteousness!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

I thought it ‘stimulated’ the economy rather than retarding it.
Just another ‘Keynesian’ way of pumping ‘other peoples money’ into the economy?

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  martin logan

it’s an unwitting conspiracy, ie simply an example of like mindedness; a twisted view of human behaviour which justifies the money/power grab associated with it. It’s as patriotic as xenophobia and racism. How nice to be able to encompass it all in the gilded frame of self-righteousness!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

..the Father of all things evil Charlie boy! But I guess some people see evil as worthwhile and things like peace, goodwill and love itself are just for deluded dreamers! What a pathetic outlook on life.. what a degenerate viewpoint. Some might think you’re being ironic; I hope you are but I fear you’re not.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

You have obviously been out in the Lusitanian sun for far too long O’Mahony old chap.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

To an extent yes Mr Mahony, peace goodwill and love are important. If you ignore war, violence, confrontation and hate though you ignore the other half of the human condition. Peace is historically won by fighting war and maintained with difficulty. You go all flower power there’s nothing to say the Chinese, or Russians won’t take advantage and kick your arse. It just reality. People aren’t always that nice, people can never agree on the best way to do stuff, at best we can reach a consensus the majority are happy with and the minority don’t blow their lids over. Arguably some pretty bad dictators have been overthrown by civil conflicts. Sometimes, unfortunately, we just can’t seem to find another way to deal with it. History is pretty clear on that.
If you have a solution – you’ve just solved the world peace problem.

Betsy Arehart
Betsy Arehart
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Unfortunately evil is out there and active among the nations no matter how much we wish for world peace and love. This is why “militarism” is sometimes necessary. You Irish, how would you like it if a powerful nation were to attempt a conquering invasion and we all said let them sink or swim on their own.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

You have obviously been out in the Lusitanian sun for far too long O’Mahony old chap.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

To an extent yes Mr Mahony, peace goodwill and love are important. If you ignore war, violence, confrontation and hate though you ignore the other half of the human condition. Peace is historically won by fighting war and maintained with difficulty. You go all flower power there’s nothing to say the Chinese, or Russians won’t take advantage and kick your arse. It just reality. People aren’t always that nice, people can never agree on the best way to do stuff, at best we can reach a consensus the majority are happy with and the minority don’t blow their lids over. Arguably some pretty bad dictators have been overthrown by civil conflicts. Sometimes, unfortunately, we just can’t seem to find another way to deal with it. History is pretty clear on that.
If you have a solution – you’ve just solved the world peace problem.

Betsy Arehart
Betsy Arehart
1 year ago
Reply to  Liam O'Mahony

Unfortunately evil is out there and active among the nations no matter how much we wish for world peace and love. This is why “militarism” is sometimes necessary. You Irish, how would you like it if a powerful nation were to attempt a conquering invasion and we all said let them sink or swim on their own.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

We can always depend on Charles to dial the cynicism up to eleven. Unfortunately for us, he’s not entirely wrong. It wasn’t economic factors that have finally encouraged America to develop its own domestic capacity for critical things like microchips and the materials to make them. It took a new Cold War to do that. America’s size, diversity, and historical origins will always tend to move the country towards more decentralization and greater regional autonomy. It’s almost like gravity. Without some countermanding force, America will separate itself into different economic blocs whose interests will eventually conflict with one another. It already erupted into outright war once, in 1860, and it probably will again given enough time and the right circumstances. What is required to push the needle in the other direction, towards greater centralization and unity, is an external threat, the more credible and the more terrifying the better. WWI,WWII, and the Cold War dominated the 20th century and provided a long period whereby external threats were far more important than internal conflicts. After 1991, that era ended and gravity began to pull America apart again. The powers that be attempted to slow this process with the “War on Terror” but the threat posed by terrorism was simply not that serious, and the leaders of that era pursued the conflict in a haphazard and incompetent manner, so that only lasted a couple of years before it was back to business as usual. Climate change and COVID both failed utterly to produce any unifying force, instead serving the opposite purpose. The threat of a rising China allied with Russia is the next attempt. So far it seems to be working, insofar as we’ve gotten a broad consensus on policy with regards to those two issues, but it hasn’t trickled down to the public yet, and when and if it ever does probably depends more on what Russia and China actually do than what America does.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
Mr_ Yesterday
Mr_ Yesterday
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Great commentary. Peace lives forever in our hearts. They can not take this away from us. Peace requires justice to be blind, or societies descend into something else.
Bastiat; When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel choice of losing his moral sense, or losing respect for the law.
Delivering democracy in the form of bombs. Brought to you by the federal reserve. 100 years of not being federal, and not having any reserves.
If you want the best education possible on the war machine, watch Ron Paul Liberty Report, weekly with Dan and Chris. ytb & rmbl

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr_ Yesterday

I only watch it when I need a laugh.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago
Reply to  Mr_ Yesterday

I only watch it when I need a laugh.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I profoundly disagree with your theory of the instability of the USA due to a supposed tendency to fragment. I’ve lived in the US for a year and spent a fair amount of time there and just don’t see it that way at all.
There are countries which are struggling to maintain national unity, but these are all based on regional, historic, economic, tribal or cultural differences. Italy is one example (perhaps mainly economic). Spain is another (cultural/lingusitic and historic). The USA really has none of these problems.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

If you spent a year in the US, you probably spent it in one of the larger metros, where, no, you wouldn’t see much of a problem. If it was New York, LA, or Washington, you basically were in the fully globalized part of America, so you may as well have visited London, Berlin, or Rio. Cities are cities wherever they are. You would have to visit several places, towns of various sizes and then places in between to truly understand the profound differences between California, New York, Kentucky, Montana, etc. Civilization and culture never stand still. America may not have had those regional, historic, economic, and tribal differences before, but that doesn’t mean they don’t develop. From 1789-1860, the south and north developed radically different cultures and economies, and eventually went to war over it. The civil war destroyed the south’s slavery based economic model and much of the culture, but couldn’t erase it entirely. By the time the US recovered from the civil war, it was a global power and the global conflicts of the twentieth century, as I said before, produced a whole host of foreign enemies who were strong enough to encourage unity and make America seem more united than it ever was. To be fair, I don’t see another civil war coming very soon. I see a period of increased political unrest, perhaps minor acts of terrorism and so forth. Some would say we’ve already reached that point. State and local governments will push back against federal control on a number of issues, and the federal government will realize it doesn’t have enough money or power to fight internal and external threats at the same time, and they’ll let the states get away with increasingly divergent policies on contentious issues for the sake of keeping the empire together, and that’s not a bad thing. There will be a de facto transfer of authority on domestic issues back to the states. It will take many more decades, maybe centuries, for the cultures to diverge enough to produce outright warfare again.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter B

If you spent a year in the US, you probably spent it in one of the larger metros, where, no, you wouldn’t see much of a problem. If it was New York, LA, or Washington, you basically were in the fully globalized part of America, so you may as well have visited London, Berlin, or Rio. Cities are cities wherever they are. You would have to visit several places, towns of various sizes and then places in between to truly understand the profound differences between California, New York, Kentucky, Montana, etc. Civilization and culture never stand still. America may not have had those regional, historic, economic, and tribal differences before, but that doesn’t mean they don’t develop. From 1789-1860, the south and north developed radically different cultures and economies, and eventually went to war over it. The civil war destroyed the south’s slavery based economic model and much of the culture, but couldn’t erase it entirely. By the time the US recovered from the civil war, it was a global power and the global conflicts of the twentieth century, as I said before, produced a whole host of foreign enemies who were strong enough to encourage unity and make America seem more united than it ever was. To be fair, I don’t see another civil war coming very soon. I see a period of increased political unrest, perhaps minor acts of terrorism and so forth. Some would say we’ve already reached that point. State and local governments will push back against federal control on a number of issues, and the federal government will realize it doesn’t have enough money or power to fight internal and external threats at the same time, and they’ll let the states get away with increasingly divergent policies on contentious issues for the sake of keeping the empire together, and that’s not a bad thing. There will be a de facto transfer of authority on domestic issues back to the states. It will take many more decades, maybe centuries, for the cultures to diverge enough to produce outright warfare again.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I am surprised you didn’t mention the wonderful Space Race. If the Soviets hadn’t fired that little dog into the ether on the back of a V3, would we ever have reached the Moon?

My only caveat on the Sino-Russian monster is that the Chinese are anxious to retrieve a large slice of territory along the Amur river that was ‘lost’ to the Tsar in the 1860’s. If this can be resolved then perhaps we will have a credible ‘new’ enemy.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

You make two excellent points here. There are some indications that a more lasting alliance might be building. For example, after decades of negotiations, the two countries finally built a cross border bridge over the Amur river for the purpose of ‘economic development’. Whether that means anything or not is debatable. With two opaque countries driven by authoritarian regimes, it’s difficult to separate public posturing from legitimate attempts to build a lasting alliance. Doesn’t stop the powers that be in America from preparing as if the alliance is real, the precautionary principle after all, or from attempting to use the possible threat to build national unity. As always, time will tell what happens in this arena. The space race is an excellent example of how defense spending advances technology. Computers were basically invented to do the complicated math necessary to put men on the moon. There are so many examples of how war drives innovation, from gunpowder to shipbuilding to metallurgy, that it is almost impossible to understate its impact. It could almost be considered a natural law that conflict produces technological advancement in direct proportion to the scale and importance of the conflict. The peace-nicks hardly realize that the computers they use to blog about the evils of war might not exist otherwise.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

You make two excellent points here. There are some indications that a more lasting alliance might be building. For example, after decades of negotiations, the two countries finally built a cross border bridge over the Amur river for the purpose of ‘economic development’. Whether that means anything or not is debatable. With two opaque countries driven by authoritarian regimes, it’s difficult to separate public posturing from legitimate attempts to build a lasting alliance. Doesn’t stop the powers that be in America from preparing as if the alliance is real, the precautionary principle after all, or from attempting to use the possible threat to build national unity. As always, time will tell what happens in this arena. The space race is an excellent example of how defense spending advances technology. Computers were basically invented to do the complicated math necessary to put men on the moon. There are so many examples of how war drives innovation, from gunpowder to shipbuilding to metallurgy, that it is almost impossible to understate its impact. It could almost be considered a natural law that conflict produces technological advancement in direct proportion to the scale and importance of the conflict. The peace-nicks hardly realize that the computers they use to blog about the evils of war might not exist otherwise.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
Mr_ Yesterday
Mr_ Yesterday
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Great commentary. Peace lives forever in our hearts. They can not take this away from us. Peace requires justice to be blind, or societies descend into something else.
Bastiat; When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel choice of losing his moral sense, or losing respect for the law.
Delivering democracy in the form of bombs. Brought to you by the federal reserve. 100 years of not being federal, and not having any reserves.
If you want the best education possible on the war machine, watch Ron Paul Liberty Report, weekly with Dan and Chris. ytb & rmbl

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I profoundly disagree with your theory of the instability of the USA due to a supposed tendency to fragment. I’ve lived in the US for a year and spent a fair amount of time there and just don’t see it that way at all.
There are countries which are struggling to maintain national unity, but these are all based on regional, historic, economic, tribal or cultural differences. Italy is one example (perhaps mainly economic). Spain is another (cultural/lingusitic and historic). The USA really has none of these problems.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I am surprised you didn’t mention the wonderful Space Race. If the Soviets hadn’t fired that little dog into the ether on the back of a V3, would we ever have reached the Moon?

My only caveat on the Sino-Russian monster is that the Chinese are anxious to retrieve a large slice of territory along the Amur river that was ‘lost’ to the Tsar in the 1860’s. If this can be resolved then perhaps we will have a credible ‘new’ enemy.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

That military spending actually retards the growth of economies obviously proves that capitalists don’t follow their own best interests, and instead mindlessly look for enemies to fight.
So it’s all one giant conspiracy.
Overseen by George Soros…or is it Hillary?

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

..the Father of all things evil Charlie boy! But I guess some people see evil as worthwhile and things like peace, goodwill and love itself are just for deluded dreamers! What a pathetic outlook on life.. what a degenerate viewpoint. Some might think you’re being ironic; I hope you are but I fear you’re not.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

We can always depend on Charles to dial the cynicism up to eleven. Unfortunately for us, he’s not entirely wrong. It wasn’t economic factors that have finally encouraged America to develop its own domestic capacity for critical things like microchips and the materials to make them. It took a new Cold War to do that. America’s size, diversity, and historical origins will always tend to move the country towards more decentralization and greater regional autonomy. It’s almost like gravity. Without some countermanding force, America will separate itself into different economic blocs whose interests will eventually conflict with one another. It already erupted into outright war once, in 1860, and it probably will again given enough time and the right circumstances. What is required to push the needle in the other direction, towards greater centralization and unity, is an external threat, the more credible and the more terrifying the better. WWI,WWII, and the Cold War dominated the 20th century and provided a long period whereby external threats were far more important than internal conflicts. After 1991, that era ended and gravity began to pull America apart again. The powers that be attempted to slow this process with the “War on Terror” but the threat posed by terrorism was simply not that serious, and the leaders of that era pursued the conflict in a haphazard and incompetent manner, so that only lasted a couple of years before it was back to business as usual. Climate change and COVID both failed utterly to produce any unifying force, instead serving the opposite purpose. The threat of a rising China allied with Russia is the next attempt. So far it seems to be working, insofar as we’ve gotten a broad consensus on policy with regards to those two issues, but it hasn’t trickled down to the public yet, and when and if it ever does probably depends more on what Russia and China actually do than what America does.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Come off it! War, hot or Cold War is great for US jobs, millions of them.

Have we already forgotten what happened after 1918? The US then plunged into a self-righteous ‘peace dividend’, but the 1922 Washington Disarmament Conference was all too soon followed by the financial crash of 1929. Then it was Steinbeck and “Okies” until, ‘heaven be praised’ those idiot Brits got themselves involved in yet another war, and guess who lent them the cash and the tools to continue it? Oh happy days of maximum production for US Industry.

Fortunately wise council prevented history repeating itself in 1945 and very soon we had a new enemy, “Reds under the bed” was the battle cry! The all too predictable collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 caused a minor panic, but fortunately a new enemy hove in sight, one distinguished by sporting large beards and wearing flip flops. Here the ridiculous battle cry was to be “The War on Terror”. Pathetic as is this enemy was, it sustained massive ‘defence’ spending for a further generation, thus those happy days continued.

Then last year as various Afghans practiced their ‘ free fall’ techniques from the last US aircraft departing Kabul, I began to wonder where the next war would be. I didn’t have long to wait, a mere six months in fact, before the whistle blew and it was kick-off in the Ukraine.

“War (hot or cold) is the Father of all things”.

Erin Marie Miller
Erin Marie Miller
1 year ago

I think this is partly true — many of the people with unchecked power and no accountability in our country (high-level politicians, FBI, CIA, high-level military, etc.) seem to have definitely fallen prey to the story that they’re the official heroes in our collective reality, always saving us from one “enemy” or another, with some also working to make a name for themselves in history in the process — even if it requires illegally forging documents in an otherwise meritless investigation, apparently.
But I have also observed huge corporations, consultancies, military contractors, and other special interest lobbyists with deep pockets and important connections playing an outsized role in the decisions that are made in D.C. I have also witnessed, directly, the government’s increasing and complex use of contractors that circumvent the Freedom of Information Act and therefore plunge the political decision-making process into pure darkness.
I don’t think the idea that there are powerful, hidden influences in D.C. is an oversimplified notion — it’s actually an overly complex concept that usually requires whistleblowers and deep investigative research to uncover, as journalism in the early 2000s proved (i.e., Snowden, Assange, the Panama Papers, etc.). To deny that special interests wield serious power over our political system is to deny a lot of American political history since the 1950s.
There is also the problem of “groupthink” within powerful groups of leaders — i.e., the idea that we are the good guys, and they are the bad guys, therefore any decision we make must be morally justified, even if it involves funding the endless killing or harming of other human beings, and all criticisms must be self-censored (see Janis L. Irving’s research into the “groupthink” phenomenon that contributed to numerous political disasters in 20th century America).
Consensus is always necessary to some degree in groups (Irving even conceded to this) but arriving at the truest and most democratic consensus is key. The encouragement of free expression and critical thought — and maybe the use of a “Devil’s Advocate” in group decision-making processes — could help avert more political and military (and humanitarian) disasters in the future. Until those things start happening, though, it seems likely that history will just continue to repeat itself.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

An insightful piece in its own right! well put.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

An insightful piece in its own right! well put.

Erin Marie Miller
Erin Marie Miller
1 year ago

I think this is partly true — many of the people with unchecked power and no accountability in our country (high-level politicians, FBI, CIA, high-level military, etc.) seem to have definitely fallen prey to the story that they’re the official heroes in our collective reality, always saving us from one “enemy” or another, with some also working to make a name for themselves in history in the process — even if it requires illegally forging documents in an otherwise meritless investigation, apparently.
But I have also observed huge corporations, consultancies, military contractors, and other special interest lobbyists with deep pockets and important connections playing an outsized role in the decisions that are made in D.C. I have also witnessed, directly, the government’s increasing and complex use of contractors that circumvent the Freedom of Information Act and therefore plunge the political decision-making process into pure darkness.
I don’t think the idea that there are powerful, hidden influences in D.C. is an oversimplified notion — it’s actually an overly complex concept that usually requires whistleblowers and deep investigative research to uncover, as journalism in the early 2000s proved (i.e., Snowden, Assange, the Panama Papers, etc.). To deny that special interests wield serious power over our political system is to deny a lot of American political history since the 1950s.
There is also the problem of “groupthink” within powerful groups of leaders — i.e., the idea that we are the good guys, and they are the bad guys, therefore any decision we make must be morally justified, even if it involves funding the endless killing or harming of other human beings, and all criticisms must be self-censored (see Janis L. Irving’s research into the “groupthink” phenomenon that contributed to numerous political disasters in 20th century America).
Consensus is always necessary to some degree in groups (Irving even conceded to this) but arriving at the truest and most democratic consensus is key. The encouragement of free expression and critical thought — and maybe the use of a “Devil’s Advocate” in group decision-making processes — could help avert more political and military (and humanitarian) disasters in the future. Until those things start happening, though, it seems likely that history will just continue to repeat itself.

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
1 year ago

“Instead, it works more loosely, subconsciously, to shape what individuals and institutions value and what they believe is right and normal and just. It really is more like a deep story about the world and how it works; or a spirit that moves subjects without their understanding how or why, or even that it exists.”
A religion.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Indeed: with its very own doctrines and dogma!

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago
Reply to  Ray Andrews

Indeed: with its very own doctrines and dogma!

Ray Andrews
Ray Andrews
1 year ago

“Instead, it works more loosely, subconsciously, to shape what individuals and institutions value and what they believe is right and normal and just. It really is more like a deep story about the world and how it works; or a spirit that moves subjects without their understanding how or why, or even that it exists.”
A religion.

James Watson
James Watson
1 year ago

Thank you for a very insightful article, written in a sparkling style. The only comment I’d make is that the situation the author describes as prevailing in official Washington would seem to exist in so many other capitals as well, except perhaps to a lesser degree and with considerably less serious consequences for the rest of the world. As a citizen of the relatively small country of New Zealand, I recognise similar attitudes in official Wellington.

Last edited 1 year ago by James Watson
Benjamin Greco
Benjamin Greco
1 year ago

Two thoughts, the Consensus is adaptable to the interest of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Second money and power go hand in hand, you can’t have one without the other.

chris sullivan
chris sullivan
1 year ago

excellent analysis thankyou – and was it Neitsche’s ‘will to power’ i read a long time ago that posited similar. My wife certainly exhibits all the characteristics of your thesis – and I have a full time job ‘wingnutting’ lest she take over my world……

John Hellerstedt
John Hellerstedt
1 year ago

To believe that we can do without a superior military is to deny that we have real enemies with competing military prowess of their own. The purpose of a strong military is to deter aggression. “Deterrence,” per the venerable Dr. Strangelove, “is the art of producing in the enemy the fear to attack.”
Our military must be so demonstrably superior that every potential adversary knows that armed conflict would end in their defeat – at best – and possibly their existential demise. We may find this awful to contemplate, but it’s truth is incontestable.
Surely, the Russian invasion of Ukraine – two First World nations at war in Europe! Today! – must disabuse us of any fantasy that human nature or realpolitik have changed.
There are and will always be those who would take what we have by force, if we let them.

Lana Hunneyball
Lana Hunneyball
1 year ago

Sjoe, what a great summary of what we all know but feel to powerless to really contemplate. Throughout I was haunted by images from Huxley’s Brave New World. Thank you.

Alan B
Alan B
1 year ago

Executive summary: We live in a nuclear and digital world. These days conventional warfare is about as “useful” as poetry–but the former’s departments are much better funded indeed. Because, c’mon man, if we’re being realistic not everyone can be a poet

Alan B
Alan B
1 year ago

Executive summary: We live in a nuclear and digital world. These days conventional warfare is about as “useful” as poetry–but the former’s departments are much better funded indeed. Because, c’mon man, if we’re being realistic not everyone can be a poet

Phillip Arundel
Phillip Arundel
1 year ago

Sounds like the classic case of ‘Getting too close to your subject’ there Lyons, till you begin to believe the lies. The Great Lie.

The flaw in your argument of this all being some kind of self feeding ‘Mass Formation Psychosis‘ is that anyone can see the agenda has captured the Politicians – they Own them by 100% corrupt means.

Governor candidate of Georgia – Stacy Abrams – $100,000,000 One Hundred Million spent on her campaign! And this is just how it went. Gates gave $400,000,000 FTX gave $100,000,000 Soros gave $150,000,000 to Democrat campaigns – Facebook – Twitter, Google… They gave $Billions of free social manipulation… The MSM 100% Lies and twisting truth!

Bio-Pharma/Medical Complex – $Billions! Military Industrial, same – then the paying of everyone – all the incestuous boards they hop to and from – and then into the Regulatory bodies….,

CORRUPT, LIES, TREASON, EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BS with your tale of it just being like bees all dancing till a consensus is met and then off all they fly as one, without even knowing why…..

This is lead from the top – this is evil taking Politics as Morality and Ethics have been cut out of the hearts of educated Westerners.

It is raw Evil. The backbone of Christianity based Classic Liberalism have been engineered out of the Imperial City classes – and evil has been pushed in like weevils into hardtack. Rotten to the Heart.

Stalin – same thing, The Putin + his Oligarchs AND his simulacrum, Zalenski, and his Oligarchs….. all just the same. Xi, same thing….100% evil has captured the hearts of the Politicians – and it is engineered – as it was in 1932 Germany – 1949 China.

No excuses – it is corrupt to the core. That they have the weak minded, ignorant, sheep, as their running dogs and useful Idiots is only because the useful idiots lack morality to question and see the evil. This is driven by Top level Evil Corporatocracy, one so huge is is best described as WEF – and is encompasses CCP, EU, UK, BRICS, KSA, USA, IMF, BIS, WHO, World Bank, UN, and the rest – and every Hedge Fund (4 of them control all the corporations in the world by controlling their stocks by controlling the investments globally) and so on – all the top 0.001% of wealth.

PS kind of off subject but – this guy, Yan – he is the world’s most intrepid, wide ranging, and excellent War Correspondent – but his gig is to travel the world as an independent to figure out what the great power is driving all the world’s Billions of people towards – give him a time – Ex Green Barret, The best person in all the world to explain what is going on with HOP ‘Human Osmotic Pressure’, his words describing how the world is pushed and pulled from above to drive the global events – I doubt many watch real people telling truth – but try it, you may find it interesting.

https://rumble.com/v24rl6w-on-the-frontlines-global-famine-is-coming.html

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

“,,, they have the weak-minded, ignorant, sheep, as their running dogs…”

Trans Collies?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Patterdale Terriers?
On second thoughts Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

Patterdale Terriers?
On second thoughts Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago

You forgot Peter Thiel and the Koch brothers in your list of evil corrupting financiers. Probably not a coincidence.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

How much did they pony up? $100M or more? Unclear because it seems every Republican candidate was outspent, often by a rather large margin. Given the current financial conditions the FTX types will have a lot less to waste on TV and people collecting ballots.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

How much did they pony up? $100M or more? Unclear because it seems every Republican candidate was outspent, often by a rather large margin. Given the current financial conditions the FTX types will have a lot less to waste on TV and people collecting ballots.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

You must stay awake most nights.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

“,,, they have the weak-minded, ignorant, sheep, as their running dogs…”

Trans Collies?

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago

You forgot Peter Thiel and the Koch brothers in your list of evil corrupting financiers. Probably not a coincidence.

martin logan
martin logan
1 year ago

You must stay awake most nights.

Phillip Arundel
Phillip Arundel
1 year ago

Sounds like the classic case of ‘Getting too close to your subject’ there Lyons, till you begin to believe the lies. The Great Lie.

The flaw in your argument of this all being some kind of self feeding ‘Mass Formation Psychosis‘ is that anyone can see the agenda has captured the Politicians – they Own them by 100% corrupt means.

Governor candidate of Georgia – Stacy Abrams – $100,000,000 One Hundred Million spent on her campaign! And this is just how it went. Gates gave $400,000,000 FTX gave $100,000,000 Soros gave $150,000,000 to Democrat campaigns – Facebook – Twitter, Google… They gave $Billions of free social manipulation… The MSM 100% Lies and twisting truth!

Bio-Pharma/Medical Complex – $Billions! Military Industrial, same – then the paying of everyone – all the incestuous boards they hop to and from – and then into the Regulatory bodies….,

CORRUPT, LIES, TREASON, EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BS with your tale of it just being like bees all dancing till a consensus is met and then off all they fly as one, without even knowing why…..

This is lead from the top – this is evil taking Politics as Morality and Ethics have been cut out of the hearts of educated Westerners.

It is raw Evil. The backbone of Christianity based Classic Liberalism have been engineered out of the Imperial City classes – and evil has been pushed in like weevils into hardtack. Rotten to the Heart.

Stalin – same thing, The Putin + his Oligarchs AND his simulacrum, Zalenski, and his Oligarchs….. all just the same. Xi, same thing….100% evil has captured the hearts of the Politicians – and it is engineered – as it was in 1932 Germany – 1949 China.

No excuses – it is corrupt to the core. That they have the weak minded, ignorant, sheep, as their running dogs and useful Idiots is only because the useful idiots lack morality to question and see the evil. This is driven by Top level Evil Corporatocracy, one so huge is is best described as WEF – and is encompasses CCP, EU, UK, BRICS, KSA, USA, IMF, BIS, WHO, World Bank, UN, and the rest – and every Hedge Fund (4 of them control all the corporations in the world by controlling their stocks by controlling the investments globally) and so on – all the top 0.001% of wealth.

PS kind of off subject but – this guy, Yan – he is the world’s most intrepid, wide ranging, and excellent War Correspondent – but his gig is to travel the world as an independent to figure out what the great power is driving all the world’s Billions of people towards – give him a time – Ex Green Barret, The best person in all the world to explain what is going on with HOP ‘Human Osmotic Pressure’, his words describing how the world is pushed and pulled from above to drive the global events – I doubt many watch real people telling truth – but try it, you may find it interesting.

https://rumble.com/v24rl6w-on-the-frontlines-global-famine-is-coming.html

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

It is rare thar I disagree fundamentally with an Unherd article but this is one such occasion. The author says he got it wrong the first time and now sees the light; I suggest he was closer to the truth the first time.
Anyone who downgrades money (and its ugly sister, power) has little understanding of human nature or at least the American version of human nature. To suggest money is secondary to any American is simply false. Paul Kingsnorth’s take is correct.
This does not negate the article’s general thrust by any means but it needs to be rebalanced. Of course it’s nice to have the ‘confirmation’ of your alleged righteousness through the approval of like-minded, equally greedy, xenophobic, racist and degenerate others all telling each other what a righteous thing it is, as soldiers of the one true God, to smite the unbelievers and their children.. e.g. in Palestine.

Liam O'Mahony
Liam O'Mahony
1 year ago

It is rare thar I disagree fundamentally with an Unherd article but this is one such occasion. The author says he got it wrong the first time and now sees the light; I suggest he was closer to the truth the first time.
Anyone who downgrades money (and its ugly sister, power) has little understanding of human nature or at least the American version of human nature. To suggest money is secondary to any American is simply false. Paul Kingsnorth’s take is correct.
This does not negate the article’s general thrust by any means but it needs to be rebalanced. Of course it’s nice to have the ‘confirmation’ of your alleged righteousness through the approval of like-minded, equally greedy, xenophobic, racist and degenerate others all telling each other what a righteous thing it is, as soldiers of the one true God, to smite the unbelievers and their children.. e.g. in Palestine.

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

I think this article presents an anachronistic caricature of anything that resembles a Consensus. For example:
“American power is righteous, because it is on the right side of History; as clearly demonstrated by the fact that America is so powerful. And if that power is righteous and good, it deserves to be exercised. To use righteous power to remake the world in our own image would by definition be to make the world better. Thus extending American power is both the most pragmatic and the most idealistic possible course”.
Manifest Destiny on a global scale, American Exceptionalism at a kool aid mixer–and a total freakin’ strawman farce! This is some runaway pathologization of people the author disagrees with, not a reflection of real Consensus views. It would not have been an unchallenged consensus, nor so woefully starved of moderation and restraint, in 1902.
To a sad degree a version of the preemptive American self-justification the author diagnoses in the Washington Elite does exist, and that is frightening enough. But the slavering Cult of Consensus, where people march in Might is Right lockstep lest they lose status as Serious People (and what is with this heavy Reliance on 17th and 18th century style early-18th Century style Capitalization?) is a ridiculous fiction. More evidence and good-faith argument would be needed to establish anything approximating the article’s thesis. I think that most of the claims Lyons makes are themselves unserious, combining some form of rabidly Christianized ideology with a rhetorical hucksterism.
But if “the spirit in Man that hungers for infinite ‘control'” in some Nietzschean zombie world–ok I admit we are partly there, but not without much dissent and many saving graces–is what one sees everywhere in this Fallen World, then I guess that is just about all one is going to see in the perceived Enemy. Perhaps the Puritanical theocracies of several American colonies–founded largely by Dissenters who were often disturbingly intolerant of out-group dissent–had it about right, in the author’s view.

Paul Coffey
Paul Coffey
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

So he’s wrong because he hasn’t presented enough evidence and good-faith argument?
Personally I see a lot of truth and insight into what he is saying, he works in Washington and I believe is close enough to know and see a lot of how power functions there.
His tone might be flippant with a lot of jokes, but its not an academic journal article on political science, your criticism is unjustified, imo. If you have any evidence of why he is wrong and a better explanation of how decisions are made in Washington I would be very interested to read them.
Thanks

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Coffey

Ok, I agree that there are some good points in it, such as the critical importance of purpose and meaning, and “None are, in their own minds, either corrupt cynics or ideological zealots”–I just find them to be overwhelmed by his flippant overreach in many places.
For example, the den of iniquity/wilderness of sin language (“veritable hive of scum and villainy” and many more such expressions). I understand that the author has inside knowledge but he should still, in my opinion, makes his case to those who don’t already agree with him. I’m just a voluntary commenter, not a paid journalist here. If Lyons thinks he can successfully identify a single Consensus view that infects nearly everyone in D.C. but him, I think there should be more corroboration and argument, less sermonizing.
You liked his sermon and I didn’t. But I don’t think the burden lies with the doubter to demonstrate that the Illuminati doesn’t exist, but on the one making the extraordinary claim. Now this is an exaggerated comparison on my part (Illuminati) but not by much, from my (admittedly self-forgiving) perspective. I think I’m allowed to dissent from the admiring herd on this comments page, to a probable cascade of downvotes, just as you’re allowed to push back.
I do understand your point concerning opinion versus scholarship or academic writing and admit I took a wrong turn there. I’ll try to be more fair and less reactive, starting tomorrow–I mean now.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Coffey

Ok, I agree that there are some good points in it, such as the critical importance of purpose and meaning, and “None are, in their own minds, either corrupt cynics or ideological zealots”–I just find them to be overwhelmed by his flippant overreach in many places.
For example, the den of iniquity/wilderness of sin language (“veritable hive of scum and villainy” and many more such expressions). I understand that the author has inside knowledge but he should still, in my opinion, makes his case to those who don’t already agree with him. I’m just a voluntary commenter, not a paid journalist here. If Lyons thinks he can successfully identify a single Consensus view that infects nearly everyone in D.C. but him, I think there should be more corroboration and argument, less sermonizing.
You liked his sermon and I didn’t. But I don’t think the burden lies with the doubter to demonstrate that the Illuminati doesn’t exist, but on the one making the extraordinary claim. Now this is an exaggerated comparison on my part (Illuminati) but not by much, from my (admittedly self-forgiving) perspective. I think I’m allowed to dissent from the admiring herd on this comments page, to a probable cascade of downvotes, just as you’re allowed to push back.
I do understand your point concerning opinion versus scholarship or academic writing and admit I took a wrong turn there. I’ll try to be more fair and less reactive, starting tomorrow–I mean now.

Last edited 1 year ago by AJ Mac
Paul Coffey
Paul Coffey
1 year ago
Reply to  AJ Mac

So he’s wrong because he hasn’t presented enough evidence and good-faith argument?
Personally I see a lot of truth and insight into what he is saying, he works in Washington and I believe is close enough to know and see a lot of how power functions there.
His tone might be flippant with a lot of jokes, but its not an academic journal article on political science, your criticism is unjustified, imo. If you have any evidence of why he is wrong and a better explanation of how decisions are made in Washington I would be very interested to read them.
Thanks

AJ Mac
AJ Mac
1 year ago

I think this article presents an anachronistic caricature of anything that resembles a Consensus. For example:
“American power is righteous, because it is on the right side of History; as clearly demonstrated by the fact that America is so powerful. And if that power is righteous and good, it deserves to be exercised. To use righteous power to remake the world in our own image would by definition be to make the world better. Thus extending American power is both the most pragmatic and the most idealistic possible course”.
Manifest Destiny on a global scale, American Exceptionalism at a kool aid mixer–and a total freakin’ strawman farce! This is some runaway pathologization of people the author disagrees with, not a reflection of real Consensus views. It would not have been an unchallenged consensus, nor so woefully starved of moderation and restraint, in 1902.
To a sad degree a version of the preemptive American self-justification the author diagnoses in the Washington Elite does exist, and that is frightening enough. But the slavering Cult of Consensus, where people march in Might is Right lockstep lest they lose status as Serious People (and what is with this heavy Reliance on 17th and 18th century style early-18th Century style Capitalization?) is a ridiculous fiction. More evidence and good-faith argument would be needed to establish anything approximating the article’s thesis. I think that most of the claims Lyons makes are themselves unserious, combining some form of rabidly Christianized ideology with a rhetorical hucksterism.
But if “the spirit in Man that hungers for infinite ‘control'” in some Nietzschean zombie world–ok I admit we are partly there, but not without much dissent and many saving graces–is what one sees everywhere in this Fallen World, then I guess that is just about all one is going to see in the perceived Enemy. Perhaps the Puritanical theocracies of several American colonies–founded largely by Dissenters who were often disturbingly intolerant of out-group dissent–had it about right, in the author’s view.