The War Psychology and its Fruit

In order to bring a nation to support the burdens of maintaining great military establishments, it is necessary to create an emotional state akin to war psychology. There must be the portrayal of external menace. -- John Foster Dulles (HT2 LRC)

WW2 followed immediately by the Cold War addicted the American population to the adrenaline (and spending patterns) of the war psychology. Large parts of the population feel no sense of purpose (and may not have a job) if they don't have an existential external threat. This then becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy, as the actions of a proud, boastful and fearful people directing half of the world's military spending will be antagonistic and scary to much of the rest of the planet.

The treatment by the US of Putin, who was dangerously (to himself) pro-US early on, demonstrates how this plays out over time.

Here is a very interesting interview by Scott Horton with Boyd Cathey (scholar and assistant to the eminent conservative author Russell Kirk).

Chris Rossini about North Korea

Chriss Rosinni talks about what the North Korean defector should do...

First, it's never the person (i.e., the tyrant, the dictator, the President, etc.) Rather it's the ideas and beliefs that are held by the victims. In this case, the main issue is not Kim Jong-un. He's just the flavor of the day. After him, there's surely a long and endless line of tyrants that would fill his void.
If the dominant idea held by the North Korean people is that they must be ruled, yearn to be ruled, and despise any other alternative, then the crumbling of Kim Jong-un idolization will mean nothing. They'll just idolize someone else.
People in the United States suffer from a similar dilemma. Americans are ruled by rotating tyrants. The idea was accepted that if the tyrants serve a term of 4-8 years, that this is somehow superior to it just being one person. Every new American tyrant is idolized at first, with tears and incense, while the tyrant whose term is coming to an end is cursed as a bum. Americans are like a dog that returns to his own vomit.

If all you want to do is unseat the current tyrant, then you're not accomplishing much. The new tyrant will have to consolidate power, perks, and pelf for his cronies the same as the last one did. He won't have the option of not doing that because the last one's cronies will be fighting to retain their sway and the new tyrant will need allies of sufficient heft to hold them back.

Each transition of power ratchets up the predation on the private/free economy and the liberties of the people, EXCEPT when there is an overriding mood on the part of the population that the last guy went WAY too far. A little too far isn't enough. The changing of the faces will overwhelm that.

When the people want to be free and are content to let their neighbor also be free, when they want to have leaders only of their own personal choice and don't want to impose that choice on their neighbors, THEN there will be progress.

Nobody said it would be easy, in fact, we know it is hard

http://mises.org/library/isaiahs-job

The purpose is to reassure the remnant, and to persuade those who are potential remnant. The masses are content to mutually loot.

100 years ago the Christian west paused in its self-imolation to remember the birth of Christ

Mary Theroux writes movingly about it at the Independent Institute.

http://blog.independent.org/2014/12/24/the-100th-anniversary-of-the-christmas-truce/

An excerpt:

Such warm fuzzies for “the enemy”, of course, undermined the cause of their rulers, and eventually all along the front officers retook charge of the situation, in some cases ordering their soldiers to take up arms or be shot themselves; in one case, a British officer shot a German soldier walking unarmed in no-man’s land, bringing the truce to a bloody end.
And thus the secret to maintaining war: we must never come to know our declared enemies, must never think of them as humans just as we are, loving their families, hoping for home and a better life. Faceless caricatures are so much better for keeping passions pitched.
And thus the secret every good ruler knows: divide and conquer. Portray “them” as different, sub-human, unworthy of the consideration we hold as our due, and certainly ones to whom Christ never intended the Golden Rule to apply.
“Them-ism” is equally effectively applied to our co-nationalists of a different color, socio-economic status, or religion. Keeping us suspicious of one another well serves our political masters, accruing ever-greater power.

Do you love Christ more than you hate those your rulers tell you are the cause of your problems and should therefore hate? They can, for the time being, fleece us and boss us around, but do we really have to let them stir up hatreds within our hearts for others, for whom Christ also died?

Why the torture?

Justin Raimondo makes an important point about the torture.

WHY was the Bush administration so eager to torture. Was it really afraid of 24 style ticking time bombs?

Um. No. They wanted to start a war with Iraq. And they needed justification for it.

The administration had already decided, early on, to attack Iraq: all that was needed was "proof" of Saddam Hussein’s connection to the 9/11 attacks – and they didn’t care how they got it. In a 2009 interview with the McClatchy news agency, a former highly-placed former US intelligence officer said:
"[F]or most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld were also demanding proof of the links between al-Qaeda and Iraq. … There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people to push harder."
As Patrick Cockburn points out in the Independent, detainees were subjected to the worst torture "in the run-up to the war in 2003, suggesting that rather than preventing further action by al-Qaeda, the US administration was intent on justifying the invasion of Iraq. One prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, who was wrongly thought to be an al-Qaeda leader by his interrogators, was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in March 2003. The first questions asked of the latter after he was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, were all about Iraq and not about forthcoming al-Qaeda attacks, according to The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan." The book also relates how Cheney’s office wanted to waterboard a top Iraqi official to get him to "verify" the alleged Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/12/18/why-did-they-torture/

So the even larger crime than the torture and imprisoning for over a decade of many people who'd just been turned in by locals to collect a bounty or to settle a private score is that the false "intelligence" gained from the torture was used to (re)start a war and kill in the neighborhood of a million people.

So while they resort to Jack Bauer torture porn situations to justify it, the torture that occurred was to extract a specific, pre-determined, response.

The joy of being the hyper-power is never having to say you're sorry, I guess. Destroying infrastructure so that people die from lack of sanitation, imposing sanctions which killed a half-million people (mostly children and the aged), all to "encourage" the people to rise up and throw off someone who previously was a US stooge... What guilt do the folks in D.C. bear from enabling and encouraging the 8 year war of aggression by Iraq on Iran? About 300,000 civilians killed. Many more soldiers. About $1 trillion in destruction.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God. Whose sons are the warmongers?

Christians for torture, atheists for sanity?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/week-god-122014

This really challenges my faith, not in Christ, but in Christians.

Hahaha .... And more believable

From Bob Murphy

 

 

 

 

Torture?

Remembering back to the early 2000's when many of us were scared because D.C. wouldn't admit to why "they hate us for our freedoms", these articles about torture ring true to me.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/torturing-god-out-of-jihadis/

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/torture-and-seriousness/

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/why-did-we-torture/

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/no-accountability-for-torture/

The last article is probably the most depressing one. There will be no accountability in this life for those who authorized, carried out and justify and defended it. The state, as the monopolist of violence, will only limit itself so much as is necessary to prevent outright rebellion/loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the subject population.

Christians' citizenship is not in this world. We have no reason to justify the evil these folks do. We shouldn't be identifying with them.

A must watch speech

http://mises.org/library/natural-law-restraint-against-tyranny

In addition

I wanted to follow Jim's post with this from Lew Rockwell's blog:

In his City of God, St. Augustine tells the story of a pirate captured by Alexander the Great. Alexander demands of him, “How dare you molest the seas?” The pirate replied, “How dare you molest the whole world? Because I do it with a small boat, I am called a thief. You, with a great fleet, molest the whole world and are called an emperor.” St. Augustine called this answer “elegant and excellent.”

I have been stressing on our radio show that Americans do NOT have a government, not one that can be defined as one, but most are under the allusion of such.
I was sent this today by one of my brother's:

What the America is supposed to be -
A Constitutional Republic
where the rights of the individual are protected

What we pretend it is -  
A Democracy
where the individual is forced to comply with the will of the majority

What it actually is -
A CORPORATION OWNED BY AN INTERNATIONAL BANKING CABAL, WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL HAS NO RIGHTS AND WHOSE LABOR IS USED AS COLLATERAL IN AN UNLAWFUL PYRAMID SCHEME.

  So the question of how would we take care of "X" without the State, is really missing the point, as Jim pointed out. Who cares? The real question is, how do rid ourselves of it?

 

"How will we deal with X without a state???"

The unique and defining feature of the state is social permission to AGGRESS against others.

The little people like the idea of the state because it permits them an avenue to AGGRESS against others ANONYMOUSLY.

All of the overreaches of the state happen because the people carrying out the deeds do so anonymously (just following orders, just enforcing the law) and the rest of society accepts this rather than holding them accountable for their individual actions which they choose to do.

The orders are issued and the laws made because the lawmakers are "just carrying out the wishes of the people", they're not personally responsible for the evil that they are calling for/enabling.

The people make the political demands because they personally won't be held accountable nor will they have to get their hands dirty with the actual violence or threats of violence which they're requesting.

And people think that a social arrangement like this can be limited. Even in the "glory days of the republic" the state was an engine of violence and aggression against those who weren't "inside" it -- Indians, Mexicans, etc to benefit the people who were inside it.

What will we do about the X?
X may be "child pornographers" or "poor" or "socially awkward" or "toe fungus".

What will we do about the X without a state? We'll do what we decide is right and we'll take responsibility for doing it, personally. We won't hide in a mob. We won't hide behind a bureaucrat "just carrying out policy" or a cop "just enforcing the law."

Terrorism, Trillions, and Fear-Mongering

William Binney is a "former Technical Director for Intelligence at the U.S. National Security Agency" with 36 years of experience there. He resigned in 2001 because he profoundly disagreed with the bureaucracy's omnivorous and unconstitutional spying. Here in one succinct paragraph, he tells us how and why the spooks do what they do:

"[The national security bureaucrats] try to get everybody afraid so they will do whatever they want, that’s the kind of leverage that they are trying to use not just against the public, but also against Congress. It’s just all based on fear-mongering. The whole point is to get more money and build a bigger empire which they have done. Over here, we’ve spend for all the 16 agencies close to a trillion dollars since 9/11. That’s really been a money-making proposition for them, this fear-mongering. Now they are doing it with cyber security. It’s how you control your population, how you manipulate them and how you let them pay for things you want done."

Indeed. Recall, too, that though the NSA frequently claims its espionage against us protects the country from bad guys -- at least those not in elected or appointed office--, more rational sources insist it "has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism." 

From H.L. Mencken

"[Politicians] are seldom if ever moved by anything rationally describable as public spirit; there is actually no more public spirit among them than among so many burglars or street-walkers. Their purpose, first, last and all the time, is to promote their private advantage, and to that end, and that end alone, they exercise all the vast powers that are in their hands . . . . Putting a new [politician or bureaucrat] to work decreases the wages of every wage-earner in the land. Giving a [politician or bureaucrat] more power takes something away from the liberty of all of us."

(Thanks to Tom Dilorenzo)

Vote!

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
Emma Goldman

“The typical citizen drops down to a lower level of mental performance as soon as he enters the political field. He argues and analyzes in a way which he would readily recognize as infantile within the sphere of his real interests. He becomes primitive again.”
Joseph Schumpeter

“Politics is the art of making your selfish desires seem like the national interest.”
Thomas Sowell

“Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.”
Ambrose Bierce

“In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.”
Charles de Gaulle

“No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.”
Thomas Sowell

Who should rule us? By Mike Anderson

A question that has long plagued the masses throughout history is "what form of State system will allow me to be free while also protecting me". To date none have emerged which can provide a reasonable answer. From the emergence of the first State systems to the present day, all States have had to survive off of the labor of their victims and the consent of their followers. 

 

All subjects of State rule are taught from birth that theirs is the best form of government and that all other types should be feared. Whether it was the "Fascism" of Mussolini and Hitler or the Communism of Stalin and Mao or the Republicanism of America, all are taught that theirs is the best and their form should not be questioned. If one questions the form, one is a heretic and a threat to society. Differences in the form lie largely in the centerpiece of the religion (oops, I mean political system). In monarchist rule, it was heresy to question the king. In any form of open dictatorship,such as Stalinist Russia or Hitler's Germany, questioning the leader is blasphemous, as is questioning his system of support, as he is the centerpiece of the political form. Questioning Hitler prior to his false flag, the Riechstag fire, was not so dangerous as it was to question after it, and after his and the public's consolidation of power to Hitler himself. In religious rule, a theocracy, the greatest sin is criticizing the associated god. If one wishes to know the centerpiece of a political system, look at what will really get you chastised or killed among the indoctrinated masses. 

 

Today we don't hear the term republicanism anymore; we hear the word "Democracy" and questioning the validity of democracy can get you labeled as a terrorist. Whether a system is Republicanism or a Democracy, the centerpiece is voting. Questioning voting as a viable and civil way to operate a society is unheard of outside of the anarchist circles. One must be a caveman or an islamic terrorist to think that being ruled and robbed by a certain majority of one's neighboring state milk cows is wrong. Those people know what's best for you, after all; And voting is a sacred right, right? There are those, such as Britain's Home Secretary, Theresa May, who believe that people who criticize democracy should be silenced, even with prison terms, because they could incite "violence" .At the same time we are told that democracies are free. 

 

As a side note, all forms of the state which are currently friendly with the US and Britain are "Democracies", including the one's that didn't get elected, but were put there by covert CIA and MI6 coups, as in Ukraine. As long as we're told they were elected, whether it's true or not, we must support them at any cost, even if it means throwing our children at some oddly defined "enemy" of the State, in it's effort to expand it's empire. 

 

All States, no matter who they rule, who their leader is or what their centerpiece is, are religions, all harking back to one central method. That is 'get them to believe a lie'. What's up is down and what's down is up; Use deception to get what you want. This method was presented, in the Bible, for example, as originating from Satan. 

 

Through centuries of conquest, revolutions, counter revolutions, etc, States have risen and fallen, replacing each other and repeating the same old habits of corralling masses of people like ranch cattle, to be milked and consumed by the State in existence at the time. But at no time and with no exception has any one of these efforts freed people from State rule. This includes America's Revolution, which simply consolidated power into the hands of a closer tyrant who was harder to resist had an easier time taxing and formed an empire that spans the globe today, murdering anyone whom it sees as an impediment to further expansion. 

 

The Civil War is largely regarded by the livestock class to be the freeing of the slaves. The great leader of the time, Honest Abe, is often regarded as the greatest president. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lincoln was a former Whig, turned republican, in the party's infancy and was by no means an honest man. The new party had a platform of high tariffs and a strong central government. Lincoln's stated goal in his inaugural address was to take control of the ports of entry of the South and force the North's high tariffs on the South to prevent them from having a trade advantage with Europe. It was all about stealing money. The only reason slavery came into the equation was that the North also wanted to have a majority vote against the South, who used the "federal ratio" on blacks to have an equal vote against the North. If the South had a majority vote, they could nullify the high tariffs. Lincoln and the Republicans wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa so the North would have the majority vote. The North had little use for slaves, after all, since they were Industrial, while the South was agricultural. Lincoln tried his best to get the war started by trying to maneuver the South into firing the first shot. In the end, Lincolnbegan issuing executive orders to send supplies to Northern soldiers stationed at fort Sumter, South Carolina, after the South warned him not to. Unbeknown to the South, Lincoln had boatloads of troops sitting behind the supply ships and when the South fired, Lincoln had his excuse.

 

In this example, we see that the war itself was started through deception. But it's reasons were taxation (milking the cows) and the centerpiece of the religion-voting. But the excuse was a show of aggression by the South, displayed out of frustration. It was common knowledge that Lincoln lied and deceived his way into war. Even Northern newspapers expressed disgust with Lincoln for what he did. In large, because they believed that such a war would decimate and divide the Union. But that is not what happened! The war grew the power of the state and in the end, the slaves were not freed after the war; The war just multiplied the power of the federal government and made all people slaves under it with little recourse. It is evident that this war, like all others, only boosted State power and provided a new fairy tale and chapters of new hocus pocus war-hero stories to indoctrinate the masses with and to inspire children to become bullet catchers for the State.

 

Every war is one more of the same example, so there's no reason to drag on with each one of them. The important lesson is that the State survives off of theft, death, deception and destruction. No war has ever freed any person from State rule (unless they get killed) because war encapsulates all the qualities of the State, often giving birth to new States. No armed revolution can free us from State rule. It will only strengthen the existing State or result in a new one. To free ourselves from State rule we must look in another direction. We must reject the qualities of the State (property rights violations) while also rejecting its religious centerpieces. In our case that centerpiece is voting. 

 

Democracy led to the ruination of ancient Greece and should have been tossed into the trash heap of history. All rights are fundamentally individual and the idea that my rights are preserved and I am free when someone I don't even know can vote on the qualities of my life, is ludicrous. How did Democracy become such a highly regarded system of tyranny? The answer is simple. The state will steal as much as it can short of causing push back. Democracy has been sold to the masses by allowing them to play a game of stakes called voting, in which they vote on who their rulers will be, how much they can steal and what rights they can take from their neighbors. In return, the voting slave is handed a piece of silver from the stolen treasure chest, to keep him in the condition of a perpetual suckling servant. By including the masses in the growth of the empire and its tyranny through "home team" propaganda, democracies have become far more oppressive than the monarchies of the past. Kings could barely get away with more than ten percent tax rates, a mere pittance of todays 39 percent top income tax, on top of countless other taxes in the supposedly free America of today.

 

By their very nature, democracies are not free. Nor is any other form of the State. But democracies are far more insidious, By fooling people into taking part in their own enslavement while thinking they are freeing themselves. Voting does not display the freedom of a nation nor is it a right, as is falsely preached by the State priests. Voting is a game of stakes. It is an act of war against one's neighbor. The voting process involves numerous ads, mostly misleading if notoutright lies and all are deception. It involves the destruction of capital through those ads and campaigning. It pits neighbor against neighbor on issues that otherwise they would not have to worry about. The process creates enemies out of those who would otherwise not have a quarrel. In the end the only winner is the State apparatus and at center stage is the religious sacrament of the State- the vote. Noone can be free if their neighbor can vote them a ruler or a freebie from their property. 

 

What of those who refuse to participate in the vote? Since they have not played the game, shouldn't they be excluded from its consequences? In any game, that would be a logical supposition. But since those who vote are also those who point the State's guns, that is not the case. What happens to a church where the members stop attending and stop taking their sacraments? Sooner or latter, the priests realize they are not wanted or needed and they, too, stay home. The Church dies. The state is the true church of Satan. Whether the creature exists or not is irrelevant. The term is descriptive of the nature of this beast. Like any other church, it will also die if and when people stop attending, stop taking the sacrament of the vote, stop participating in the sacrament of war and stop identifying with that religious organization which deceives, steals and kills.

“Christians” Approve of Gate-Rape Just as They Did of Genocide

“Some church archivists made special efforts to help track down members of alien races,” says Guenter Lewy in The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies [Oxford University Press 2000], “…Archivist Karl Themel  of the Evangelical Church in Berlin mobilized 150 helpers” – alas, the author does not list the names of these National Socialist “Christians” so that they may live in infamy – “and created an alphabetized index for  all baptisms in Berlin between 1800 and 1874. Every member of the national community …, Themel wrote, now ‘has the duty to become aware of his blood-link to the German people and to prove this link.’ Part of the cost of this large undertaking was paid by the Evangelical Church synod of Berlin. Within this larger index, Themel constructed a special section, a “baptism index for those of alien blood,’ which listed ‘Jews, Gypsies, and Negroes.’ Copies of all entries in this special index, Themel insisted, had to be sent to the Reich Office for Genealogical Research, the agency authorized to certify that someone belonged to the Aryan race. … As late as 1942, when the Gypsies’ situation had worsened considerably, … a Catholic priest supplied the [German police] with information from parish files.”

What blasphemy, you’re thinking. How could any true Christian betray the name of Christ so egregiously, let alone whole churches and synods' assisting the State in such evil?

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Here is the Amerikan 2014 update of that tragic apostasy: Anderson University, a “Christian” school in Indiana, has actively and enthusiastically recruited John “The Pervert” Pistole, Large Bowel at the TSA, to become its president – and this when both The Pervert and Anderson admit he has zilch academic credentials. I guess all the other serial rapists Anderson considered were too busy serving time to respond to the offer.

You’ll recall that The Perv ramped up the TSA’s sexual assault from something reserved for buxom women its gate-rapists lusted to grope to Standard Operating Procedure: at Pistole’s insistence, his minions sexually molested every passenger, even little kids. Yes, that’s a crime we call “pedophilia” and punish with major jail-time when deviants who aren’t wearing the TSA’s brownshirts-sorry, blue shirts do it.

Pistole also greased the skids for the TSA’s porno-scanners, not only forcing passengers to pose for the TSA’s peep-show but wasting millions of our tax-dollars on gizmos that now sit in a warehouse. Meanwhile, the guy lied, lied, and lied some more, claiming that the porno-scanners produced only a “chalk outline” of victims rather than a graphic picture of their naked bodies.

No regime anywhere, no matter how brutal or totalitarian, has ever instituted wholesale sexual assault against its “free,” i.e., non-incarcerated, citizens; not even the Nazis sank that low. Yet Pervert Pistole made that the USSA’s official policy. Now he reaps a reward for such evil—and from a “Christian” university, no less.

Germany’s “Christians” have nothing on Amerika’s.

Wear it proudly!

A friend of mine designed these, we are going to have stickers made and wear them proud on Election Day.

The truth

I love this.