RANGER AGAINST WAR: Truth or Consequences, II <

Friday, June 02, 2017

Truth or Consequences, II


We are never deceived;
we deceive ourselves
--Goethe

Yes, I'm stuck in the middle with you,
And I'm wondering what it is I should do
--Stuck in the Middle with You,
Stealer's Wheel
______________________

The biggest lie is that our election are about freedom and democracy. These are the same lies that we accept as the basis of our wars. Wars are not about anything but power, since democracy and freedom are never achieved with a bayoneted rifle.

Our elections and wars are based upon capitalism, not democracy. This has been the truth since the founding of our nation. Every election walks the fault line between Jeffersonian (agrarian homeland focus) and Hamiltonian (strong armies, banks and foreign policy) thought.

If words have no fixed meaning or are lies, then so, too, are our laws. Words are the only thing that binds us to the world and reveals its meaning. If words are untruthful the the resultant insincerity is the precursor to societal decline.

Our elections are about capitalism and the parties ability to exploit that fact. If they were about freedom and democracy we should have no need for them since we would all agree that freedom and democracy were good things.

Freedom and democracy are words that have no fixed meaning, for we are told the elections in Egypt and Afghanistan provided democracy and freedom to those countries, but should ask, "how?"

Our elections are about two very simple capitalistic thoughts. With one party the top one percent get to exploit what used to be the middle class (which is now the working class) and trickle up the money from the many to the few.

The other party wants to take from the top and distribute to the lower income bracket. At the same time, they pretend to support a middle class democracy.

Neither strategy enhances democracy or freedom. Elections simply decide where the money will flow and which party gets to exploit the middle class. In both scenarios, the middle class takes a beating.

If one accepts this logic on the topic of elections then one must accept the use of lies as party planks, for it unlikely that people will vote to be exploited.

History has proven that all elections have been based upon lies, false suppositions and faulty assumptions or interpretations of facts.

And we the people continue to march as if our voices matter.

That's the lie of democracy.


--by Jim

Labels: , ,

8 Comments:

Anonymous David said...

Well said.

If you want to know how much about elections matter per se, I suppose you could always look at North Korea. Kim was re-elected just a couple years ago.

I do have one question on the wars point that I've been thinking about for a while.

While empire is almost as popular and important as ever, there is a complete disconnect between military experience and political leadership. Taking away this election and last one, where nobody with any military experience ran at all, the Vietnam veteran lost in 2008, 2004, and 2000 (though non-combat), the World War 2 veteran lost in 1996.

The lesson: all else being equal, if you want to be president, don't serve in the military, even though you definitely will be running wars as part of your presidency.

So: Do you think having required national service for everyone when they become adults would make people think about war and empire a little bit more seriously when it comes to voting?

I guess maybe it doesn't matter when both parties are effectively the same on this front and when modern military equipment would be too expensive to do this.

Friday, June 2, 2017 at 6:16:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous jim hruska said...

David
u ask if i think etc...
well no i don't as i'm a ranger. we're trained to react.
here's my reaction.
it doesn't matter what we do b/c we've already lost the next war.
i served in the drafted army and was , and still am proud of the infantry soldiers of the vn war.they did what they were supposed to do.the same can be said of the volar soldiers of today, but i saw a come down after the draft was deep sixed.
now i don't think that service makes people more liberal or thoughtful. usually old soldiers are very conservative.so too most new soldiers who get brain washed early.
jim

Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 1:09:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous David said...

I was afraid that might be your answer.

I didn't expect it would turn conservatives into liberals but the thing that irks me is that, at least from where I see it, the more distanced people are from the military, the easier it is to throw away military lives on foolish wars abroad. Obviously simply paying higher taxes to pay for the empire isn't a high enough price to get people to stop and think.

This isn't only an American problem. Back in college years ago now, I had a beer with a Canadian political scientist (like me, someone I don't think ever served in the military) who told me with a straight face, I think sincerely, that the Canadian army needed to join the U.S. in any foreign war because demonstrating Canada's military support would mean Canada would have a better negotiating position in free trade talks.

At least most American politicians are usually polite enough to claim they have higher motives than profit, even when it isn't true. If I'd been ten years older and had a little more backbone, I would have asked him how many lives he thought a $10 billion increase in trade would be worth, but I'm ashamed to say I kept my thoughts to myself at the time.

Anyhow, that's where my question comes from. I guess I should known that solution would be too easy.

Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 11:27:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

David,
keeping ones mouth shut is fine, but it leads to passive aggressive tendencies.
now for the whammer of the day.
it may be easy for people to commit the troops and to write them off as expendable BUT,if u read my essays my key point is that the military mind is quick to implement ops that needlessly and for no reasonable purpose destroy the lives and or bodies of soldiers.
think about this.the japanese attacked pearl harbor and the philipines and we lost a great number of people.NO ONE ever questions why we had armies in the middle of the pacific ocean in the first place..
the same observation applies to afgh/irq etc...
every battle analysis and moh scenario that i've written reinforces my point.
its a sad world that soldiers roam.
a few days ago i read a mad magazine for the first time in 50 years and it made as much sense as Spicer press conference.
jim hruska

Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 12:09:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim,
I have been reading and listening to what the influential foreign policy think tank people, state dept people, advisors to presidents, etc have to say. These are people that have advised both democrat and republican admins during the VN war to present. They're the ones that get us into wars.

What has struck me is that none of them, I mean NONE, question the need to have US "influence" all over the globe (includes military presence). That view point is absolutely unquestioned. It seems to me that it is taken as being as fundamental a truth as the need to breath in air.

The more liberal versions point to the need to save oppressed people and spread democracy and the more conservative versions see a paranoid need to stop various menaces from spreading and to defend US interests (what those interests are is never explained - maybe it is assumed such things are also so fundamental that explanation is not needed). Liberal or conservative, the result is the same.

So this is what is taught at the finest universities, I guess. It's all wrapped up in social sciences/political science gobbedlyguk and imperialism melded with patriotism.

A lot of us kind of intuited this all along. Trump told us that he opposed it. Clinton embraced it. We'll have to see if Trump was sincere and, if so, if he can defeat the massive pressure from all the brainwashed FP careerists. BTW...IMO, Trump's opposition to global US presence, etc. is why they are so out to get him

avedis

Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 3:05:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous David said...

Jim -- I suppose that's a fair point. Thanks for responding in detail and I see what you mean.

Avedis -- I think we're agreed completely on this one, except in our differing amounts of optimism on Trump.

I know Lisa doesn't hold the Times and the Post in high regard because of their partisan opposition to Trump, but it has to be said, one of the most ghastly moments in the past few months was when they broke ranks to praise Trump for bombing Syria.

It was as if they were trying to send a message to the White House. "I know we hate each other, but as long as you keep the foreign wars going, we're still cool."

Sunday, June 4, 2017 at 8:51:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger NaRong said...

I have been reading and listening to what the influential foreign policy think tank people, state dept people, advisors to presidents, etc have to say. These are people that have advised both democrat and republican admins during the VN war to present. They're the ones that get us into wars.

goldenslot
บาคาร่า online

Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 7:30:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Jeffrey Poor said...

Good to meet you today. Keep writing.

Saturday, July 1, 2017 at 4:09:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home