Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Why Governments must guard against peace?

This blogger did an image search on "War Monger" and the very bottom photo in this post appeared as a choice. The above and photos below actually have nothing to do with the below text, but I found the photos interesting. I found them [here].

The Except below from Stephen Lendman [found here]

-- the notion that the "basic authority of a modern state over its people resides in its war powers;"

-- world peace would cause "unparalleled and revolutionary" social structure changes;

-- disarmament's economic impact;

-- far-reaching "political, sociological, cultural, and ecological changes," and two broad questions pertaining to:

-- expectations if peace comes; and

-- policies to follow if it does.

Other issues included:

-- the "real functions of war in modern societies" beyond defending the national interest;

-- without war, "what other institutions exist or might be devised to fulfill these functions;"

-- the possibility of abolishing war;

-- the desirability and repercussions of doing it; and

-- possible social system improvements from war-readiness.

Doe hoped for public discussions about "the elements of war and the problems for peace." None followed. Wars persist, and so do Report notions like:

Wars are an economic, political and ecological necessity, important to continue indefinitely. Peace "would almost certainly not be in the best interest of (a) stable society" and might be "catastrophic."

General disarmament would require "scrapping....a critical proportion of the most highly developed occupational specialties in the economy."

Diverting an arms budget to a "non-military system (is) remote (in a) market economy." Replacing it with public works is "wishful thinking (and) unrealistic."

War is "the basic social system, within which other secondary modes of social organization conflict or conspire. (It's) the system (that's) governed most human societies of record, as it (does) today."

No other control mechanism has been devised even close to it in effectiveness.

War-making potential doesn't result from threats. In fact, "threats against the national interest are usually created or accelerated to meet the changing needs of the war system."

Significant nonmilitary functions and benefits of wars were claimed to exist, including economic protections against depression, and stimulus contributing to the rise of gross national product and individual productivity. Nothing else devised "can remotely compare to it in effectiveness." It's the "essential economic stabilizer."

War's political importance is crucial. It defines and enforces relations with other nations. National sovereignty and the traditional nation-state depend on it. The war system is essential to internal political stability. "Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence (to) its legitimacy, or right to rule its society."

A nation's authority over its people "resides in its war powers," including local police to deal with "internal enemies in a military manner."

Military service has a patriotic purpose "that must be maintained for its own sake."

Wars also serve an ecological purpose - "to reduce the consuming population to a level consistent with the survival of the species," but mass destruction is inefficient, and nuclear weapons are indiscriminate, removing physically stronger members important to save.

Because of medical and scientific advances, pestilence no longer can control populations effectively, balancing them with agriculture's potential. As a result, other measures are needed to control "undesirable genetic traits."


* * * *
* * * *

A Connecticut judge was known to mock the speech of those whose first isn't English. If on video, it would appear blatantly racist. Those who are Black, and in the White dominated court, are told to, "Shut up and take the deal", innocent, or guilty, or really have to face the BBQ. The re-post of a news story really doesn't tell the story, unless you know the story:
This is the real story:

Ramsey Clark & Cindy Sheehan - The Supreme International Crime = American Wars of Aggression

Text with video:
SocialJusticeNOW | April 20, 2010

In Washington DC on March 20th, 2010 as part of the National March on Washington DC, Ramsey Clark spoke about how the imperial presidency of America is destroying any chance for peace in the world and what we can do to change that. Then Cindy Sheehan talks about how to bring about real change and quotes Mario Savio from the 60s in his speech about putting your body upon the gears and making the war machine stop.
For more information about this event go to:

* * * *


Post a Comment

<< Home

View My Stats