If you have "no place to go," come here!

The U.S. Military’s Ongoing Creation of Terrorists is a Deliberate Goal to Justify and Promote New-World-Order Global Domination

I have too readily embraced the notion, as I did with the Bushco regime, that this country is being led by macho, narcissistic, addicted-to-power, patriarchal nincompoops unwittingly generating massive chaos and destruction.

The macho, narcissistic, addicted-to-power, patriarchal part is right. And there are nincompoops and sycophant, amoral cronies enabling their asses off at the upper levels of power. But I and the rest of us should at all times apply the savvy Naomi Klein’s “shock and awe” theory to the continuing, seemingly unsuccessful nightmares resulting in global U.S. military policies. We need to exit the fog of spiritual and intellectual confusion to rally against bottom-line and insane evil.

To be “confused” ... from the Latin ... meaning “fused with”. When one is confused, one is in a sense enthralled by the confuser. Stymied. Paralyzed, to a degree, in the struggle for dissemination. To be confused is to be vulnerable. Such is the power of “crazymaking” actions.

We as citizens need to be clear on the method of the seeming madness of our military which really is not OUR military, but the military of psychopathic-agendaed corporations and their craven, amoral handlers and benefactors.

The failing, perpetual and spreading-ever-faster wars are not evidence of incompetence. It would seem so when one measures the consequences of our wars, the Afghanistan one now rounding its first decade, in the context of human decency. But when you are dealing with “psychopathic” willfulness, moral law does not apply. The seeming disasters of our war operations that are proliferating terrorism, not reducing it, is evidence of the diabolical and insane genius of profound evil. Sub-sub-sub basement level evil.

More and more people of conscience, sources of truth and not propaganda, are reporting how U.S. military violence is not as strategically pointed, by a long shot (pun intended), as the obliging corporate media gives the military credit for i.e., their parroting the military’s label (whenever the military can get away with it which is, according to Wikileaks disclosures, OFTEN) as most U.S. casualties can justifiably be labeled “the enemy”.

In particular, the biggest recruiting tool for jihadism is the surreal, cold-blooded and illegitimate -- as they cross supposed-to-be sovereign borders as directed by their remote Nevada or Virginia joy stick, armchair operators -- drone warfare.

The deadly, incinerating drones, and the only public mention made of them by our President it would seem has been that stunningly tasteless joke about sending them after the Jonas brothers if they got the wrong idea about his daughters (sorry, I have forgotten which source pointed out that this was the ONLY Obama mention). Even though each drone is costing, besides the horrific levels of innocent human lives instantly annihilated by their sadistic capacities, millions of dollars of taxpayer money. No spending freeze on them. No national conversation either.

David Martin in an article entitled “U.S. Trying to 'Kill Its Way Out' of Afghan War?” applies to this globally inflammatory and criminal drone warfare what he calls“insurgent math”. He is not the first.

“for every fighter killed several members of his family join the fight to get revenge -- and carries the risk of causing civilian deaths.”

Johann Hari on America’s drone program in an article entitled “Obama’s Robot Wars Endanger All of Us”:

True, the programme has certainly killed some real jihadis. But the evidence suggests it is creating far more jihadis than it kills – and is making an attack on you or me more likely with each bomb.

Drone technology was developed by the Israelis, who routinely use it to bomb the Gaza Strip. I've been in Gaza during some of these attacks. The people there were terrified – and radicalised. A young woman I know who had been averse to political violence and an advocate of peaceful protest saw a drone blow up a car full of people – and she started supporting Islamic Jihad and crying for the worst possible revenge against Israel. Robot-drones have successfully bombed much of Gaza, from secular Fatah to Islamist Hamas, to the brink of jihad.

Is the same thing happening in Pakistan? David Kilcullen is a counter-insurgency expert who worked for General Petraeus in Iraq and now advises the State Department. He has shown that two per cent of the people killed by the robot-planes in Pakistan are jihadis. The remaining 98 per cent are as innocent as the victims of 9/11. He says: "It's not moral." And it gets worse: "Every one of these dead non-combatants represents an alienated family, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially as drone strikes have increased."

Professor of Middle Eastern history Juan Cole puts it more bluntly: "When you bomb people and kill their family, it pisses them off. They form lifelong grudges... This is not rocket science. If they were not sympathetic to the Taliban and al-Qa'ida before, after you bomb the shit out of them, they will be." This is why all the people who have been captured or defected from Osama Bin Laden's circle, from his bodyguard to his son, say the same: he is delighted when Western governments fight back by recklessly killing Muslims.

Of course jihadism is not motivated solely by attacks against Muslim countries by the West. Some of it is motivated by a theocratic desire to control and tyrannise other humans in the most depraved ways: to punish women who wish to feel the sun on their hair, for one. Yet it is a provable fact that violence against Muslims tips many more people into retaliatory jihadi violence against us. Even the 2004 report commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld said that "American direct intervention in the Muslim world" was the primary reason for jihadism.


I detest jihadism. Their ideology is everything I oppose: their ideal society is my Hell. It is precisely because I want to really undermine them – rather than pose as macho – that I am against this robot-slaughter. It enlarges the threat. It drags us into a terrible feedback loop, where the US launches more drone attacks to deal with jihadism, which makes jihadism worse, which prompts more drone attacks, which makes jihadism worse – and on and on, in a state with nuclear weapons ...


The real and necessary fight against jihadists has to have, at its core, a policy of systematically stripping them of their best recruiting tools. Yet Obama and the CIA are doing the opposite – to an accompanying soundtrack of the screams of innocent civilians, ....and the low, delighted chuckle of Osama Bin Laden.

True, the program has certainly killed some real jihadis. But the evidence suggests that it is creating far more jihadis than it kills -- and is making an attack on you or me more likely with each bomb.

David Martin again:

Although American commanders frequently say “we cannot kill our way out this war,” that appears to be exactly what the U.S. is doing -- unleashing air strikes and special operations raids ...


Killing the enemy is what the U.S. military does best. Everything else -- reconstruction, improved governance, building up the Afghan Army and police, reconstruction, etc. takes too long to meet the political deadlines which exist in Washington.

Martin is spot on about the killing part. But Paul Craig Roberts might challenge him that the so-called non-killing agenda that Martin spells out is in any way a sincere and priority goal on the part of the U.S. military and government. The REAL goal, according to Roberts, is ultimate total global domination. And such ultimate world domination via the psychopathic and sociopathic massive destruction of human lives is not only a willing price our military and the "MOTU" are willing to pay but the actual route that is achieving their so-vile-and-corrupt-it-repels-one-to-easily-understand-it goal!

Mr. Roberts makes a compelling case in his article, "The War-on-Terror":

The "war on terror" is now in its tenth year.  What is it really all about?

The bottom line answer is that the "war on terror" is about creating real terrorists. The US government desperately needs real terrorists in order to justify its expansion of its wars against Muslim countries and to keep the American people sufficiently fearful that they continue to accept the police state that provides "security from terrorists," but not from the government that has discarded civil liberties. 

The US government creates terrorists by invading Muslim countries, wrecking  infrastructure and killing vast numbers of civilians. The US also creates terrorists by installing puppet governments to rule over Muslims and by using the puppet governments to murder and persecute citizens as is occurring on a vast scale in Pakistan today.

Neoconservatives used 9/11 to launch their plan for US world hegemony. Their plan fit with the interests of America’s ruling oligarchies. Wars are good for the profits of the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us in vain a half century ago.  American hegemony is good for the oil industry’s control over resources and resource flows. The transformation of the Middle East into a vast American puppet state serves well the Israel Lobby’s Zionist aspirations for Israeli territorial expansion.

Most Americans cannot see what is happening because of their conditioning.  Most Americans believe that their government is the best on earth, that it is morally motivated to help others and to do good, that it rushes aid to countries where there is famine and natural catastrophes. Most believe that their presidents tell the truth, except about their sexual affairs.

The persistence of these delusions is extraordinary in the face of daily headlines that report US government bullying of, and interference with, virtually every country on earth. The US policy is to buy off, overthrow, or make war on leaders of other countries who represent their peoples’ interests instead of American interests.

And Tom Engelhardt brings brilliantly, breathtakingly, and thoroughly Roberts' theory "on home" in his article, "A World Made By War":

If you had told me then that we would henceforth be in a state of eternal war as well as living in a permanent war state, that, to face a ragtag enemy of a few thousand stateless terrorists, the national security establishment in Washington would pump itself up to levels not faintly reached when facing the Soviet Union, a major power with thousands of nuclear weapons and an enormous military, that “homeland” -- a distinctly un-American word -- would land in our vocabulary never to leave, and that a second Defense Department dubbed the Department of Homeland Security would be set up not to be dismantled in my lifetime, that torture (excuse me, “enhanced interrogation techniques”) would become as American as apple pie and that some of those “techniques” would actually be demonstrated to leading Bush administration officials inside the White House, that we would pour money into the Pentagon at ever escalating levels even after the economy crashed in 2008, that we would be fighting two potentially trillion-dollar-plus wars without end in two distant lands, that we would spend untold billions constructing hundreds of military bases in those same lands, that the CIA would be conducting the first drone air war in history over a country we were officially not at war with, that most of us would live in a remarkable state of detachment from all of this, and finally -- only, by the way, because I’m cutting this list arbitrarily short -- that I would spend my time writing incessantly about “the American way of war” and produce a book with that title, I would have thought you were nuts.


As on that island [Governor’s, 1950s], so for most Americans then, the worlds of the warrior and of abundance were no more antithetical than they were to the corporate executives, university research scientists, and military officers who were using a rising military budget and the fear of communism to create a new national security economy.  An alliance between big industry, big science, and the military had been forged during World War II that blurred the boundaries between the military and the civilian by fusing together a double set of desires: for technological breakthroughs leading to ever more efficient weapons of destruction and to ever easier living.  The arms race -- the race, that is, for future good wars -- and the race for the good life were then, as on that island, being put on the same “war” footing.

In the 1950s, a military Keynesianism was already driving the U.S. economy toward a consumerism in which desire for the ever larger car and missile, electric range and tank, television console and submarine was wedded in single corporate entities.  The companies -- General Electric, General Motors, and Westinghouse, among others -- producing the large objects for the American home were also major contractors developing the big ticket weapons systems ushering the Pentagon into its own age of abundance.

More than half a century later, the Pentagon is still living a life of abundance -- despite one less-than-victorious, less-then-good war after another -- while we, increasingly, are not.  In the years in-between, the developing national security state of my childhood just kept growing, and in the process the country militarized in the strangest of ways.

Only once in that period did a sense of actual war seem to hover over the nation.  That was, of course, in the Vietnam years of the 1960s and early 1970s, when the draft brought a dirty war up close and personal, driving it into American homes and out into the streets, when a kind of intermittent warfare seemed to break out in this country’s cities and ghettos, and when impending defeat drove the military itself to the edge of revolt and collapse.

From the 1970s until 2001, as that military rebuilt itself as an all-volunteer force and finally went back to war in distant lands, the military itself seemed to disappear from everyday life.  There were no soldiers in sight, nothing we would consider commonplace today -- from uniforms and guns in train stations to military flyovers at football games, or the repeated rites of praise for American troops that are now everyday fare in our world where, otherwise, we largely ignore American wars.

In 1989, for instance, I wrote in the Progressive magazine about a country that seemed to me to be undergoing further militarization, even if in a particularly strange way.  Ours was, I said, an “America that conforms to no notions we hold of militarism… Militarization is, of course, commonly associated with uniformed, usually exalted troops in evidence and a dictatorship, possibly military, in power.  The United States, by such standards, still has the look of a civilian society.  Our military is, if anything, less visible in our lives than it was a decade ago: No uniforms in the streets, seldom even for our traditional parades; a civilian elected government; weaponry out of sight… the draft and the idea of a civilian army a thing of the past.

“In the Reagan-Bush era, the military has gone undercover in the world that we see, though not in the world that sees us.  For if it is absent from our everyday culture, its influence is omnipresent in corporate America, that world beyond our politics and out of our control -- the world which, nonetheless, plans our high-tech future of work and consumption.  There, the militarization of the economy and the corporatization of the military is a process so far gone that it seems reasonable to ask whether the United States can even be said to have a civilian economy.”

Of course, that was then, this is now.  Little did I know.  Today, it seems, our country is triumphant in producing only things that go boom in the night: we have a near monopoly on the global weapons market and on the global movie market, where in the dark we’re experts in explosions of every sort.  When I wrote in 1989 that the process was “so far gone,” I had no idea how far we still had to go.  I had no idea, for instance, how far a single administration could push us when it came to war.  Still, one thing that does remain reasonably constant about America’s now perpetual state of war is how little we -- the 99% of us who don’t belong to the military or fight -- actually see of it, even though it is, in a sense, all around us.

We are the proverbially and incrementally boiled frogs as you can see from Engelhardt's compelling and at the same time exhaustingly thorough disclosures. He goes on to describe what he calls the “warscapes”!

From a remarkable array of possibilities, here are just a few warscapes -- think of them as like landscapes, only deadlier -- that might help make more visible an American world of, and way of, war that we normally spend little time discussing, questioning, debating, or doing anything about.

As a start, let me try to conjure up a map of what “defense,” as imagined by the Pentagon and the U.S. military, actually looks like.  You can find such a map at Wikipedia, but for a second just imagine a world map laid flat before you.  Now divide it, the whole globe, like so many ill-shaped pieces of cobbler, into six servings -- you can be as messy as you want, it’s not an exact science -- and label them the U.S. European Command or EUCOM (for Europe and Russia), the U.S. Pacific Command or PACOM (Asia), CENTCOM (the Greater Middle East and a touch of North Africa), NORTHCOM (North America), SOUTHCOM (South America and most of the Caribbean), and AFRICOM (almost all of Africa).  Those are the “areas of responsibility” of six U.S. military commands.

In case you hadn’t noticed, on our map that takes care of just about every inch of the planet, but -- I hasten to add -- not every bit of imaginable space.  For that, if you were a clever cartographer, you would somehow need to include STRATCOM, the U.S. Strategic Command charged with, among other things, ensuring that we dominate the heavens, and the newest of all the “geographic” commands, CYBERCOM, expected to be fully operational later this fall with “1,000 elite military hackers and spies under one four-star general” prepared to engage in preemptive war in cyberspace.

Some of these commands have crept up on us over the years.  CENTCOM, which now oversees our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, was formed in 1983, a result of the Carter Doctrine -- that is, of President Jimmy Carter’s decision to make the protection of Persian Gulf oil a military necessity, while both NORTHCOM (2002) and AFRICOM (2007) were creations of the Global War on Terror.

From a mapping perspective, however, the salient point is simple enough: at the moment, there is no imaginable space on or off the planet that is not an “area of responsibility” for the U.S. military.  That, not the protection of our shores and borders, is what is now meant by that word “defense” in the Department of Defense.  And if you were to stare at that map for a while, I can’t help but think it would come to strike you as abidingly strange.  No place at all of no military interest to us?  What does that say about our country -- and ourselves?

In case you’re imagining that the map I’ve just described is simply a case of cartographic hyperbole, consider this: we now have what is, in essence, a secret military inside the U.S. military.  I’m talking about our Special Operations forces.  These elite and largely covert forces were rapidly expanded in the Bush years as part of the Global War on Terror, but also thanks to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s urge to bring covert activities that were once the province of the CIA under the Pentagon’s wing.  By the end of George W. Bush’s second term in office -- think of that map again -- Special Operations forces were fighting in, training in, or stationed in approximately 60 countries under the aegis of the Global War on Terror.  Less than two years later, according to the Washington Post, 13,000 Special Operations troops are deployed abroad in approximately 75 countries as part of an expanding Global War on Terror (even if the Obama administration has ditched that name); in other words, Special Ops troops alone are now operating in close to 40% of the 192 countries that make up the United Nations! 

And talking about what the Pentagon has taken under its wing, I’m reminded of a low-budget sci-fi film of my childhood, The Blob.  In it, a gelatinous alien grows ever more humongous by eating every living thing in its path, with the exception of Steve McQueen in his debut screen role.  By analogy, take what’s officially called the “IC” or U.S. Intelligence Community, that Rumsfeld was so eager to militarize.  It’s made up of 17 major agencies and outfits, including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).  Created in 2004 in response to the intelligence dysfunction of 9/11, ODNI is already its own small bureaucracy with 1,500 employees and next to no power to do the only thing it was really ever meant to do, coordinate the generally dysfunctional labyrinth of the IC itself.

You might wonder what kind of “intelligence” a country could possibly get from 17 competing, bickering outfits -- and that’s not even the half of it.  According to a Washington Post series, Top Secret America, by Dana Priest and William Arkin: “In all, at least 263 organizations have been created or reorganized as a response to 9/11… Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States… In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings -- about 17 million square feet of space.”

Oh, and keep in mind that more than two-thirds of the IC’s intelligence programs are controlled by the Pentagon, which also means control over a major chunk of the combined intelligence budget, announced at $75 billion (“2 1/2 times the size it was on Sept. 10, 2001,” according to Priest and Arkin), but undoubtedly far larger.

And when it comes to the Pentagon, that’s just a start. Massive expansion in all directions has been its m.o. since 9/11.  Its soaring budget hit about $700 billion for fiscal year 2010 (when you include a war-fighting supplemental bill of $33 billion) -- an increase of only 4.7% in otherwise budget-slashing times -- and is now projected to hit $726 billion in fiscal year 2011.  Some experts claim, however, that the real figure may come closer to the trillion-dollar mark when all aspects of national security are factored in.  Not surprisingly, it has taken over a spectrum of State Department-controlled civilian activities, ranging from humanitarian relief and development (aka “nation-building”) to actual diplomacy.  And don’t forget its growing roles as a domestic-disaster manager and a global arms dealer, or even as a Green Revolution energy innovator.  You could certainly think of the Pentagon as the Blob on the American horizon, and yet, looking around, you might hardly be aware of the ways your country continues to be militarized.


I mean, no sooner had U.S. troops taken Baghdad in April 2003 than the Pentagon and the crony corporations it now can’t go to war without began to pour billions of taxpayer dollars into the construction of well fortified American towns in Iraq that included multiple bus routes, PXes, fast-food joints, massage parlors, Internet cafés, power plants, water-treatment plants, sewage plants, fire stations, you name it.  Hundreds of military bases, micro to mega, were built in Iraq alone, including the ill-named but ginormous Victory Base Complex at the edge of Baghdad International Airport, with at least nine significant sub-bases nestled inside it, and Balad Air Base, which -- sooner than you could say “Saddam Hussein’s in captivity” -- was handling air traffic on the scale of O'Hare International in Chicago, and bedding down 40,000 inhabitants including hire-a-gun African cops, civilian defense employees, Special Ops forces, the employees of private contractors, and of course tons of troops.

And all of this was nothing compared to the feat the Pentagon accomplished in Afghanistan where the U.S. military now claims to have built something like 400 bases of every sort from the smallest combat outposts to monster installations like Bagram Air Base in a country without normal resources, fuel, building materials, or much of anything else.  Just about all construction materials for those bases and the fuel to go with them had to be delivered over treacherous supply lines thousands of miles long, so treacherous and difficult in fact that, by the time a gallon of fuel reaches Afghanistan to keep those Humvees and MRAPs rolling along, it’s estimated to cost $400.


So let me ask you: Are you sure that you want the U.S. military to be concerned with every inch of the planet?  Are you sure that you want your tax dollars to go, above all, into building pyramid-equivalents in Iraq or Afghanistan instead of tunnels at home, or into fighting a multigenerational war on terror planet-wide, instead of into putting the unemployed to work here?  If you can’t imagine reducing the American military mission and “footprint” on this planet significantly, then, of course, it’s probably best to ignore this talk.  But rest assured: you won’t save our country that way, you’ll destroy it.

Thank you, Tom Engelhardt, for doing America's homework!

So can you now see this BLOB OF EVIL annihilating all forms of life on the planetary horizon that has been created using our tax dollars and the blood of our young adult children, past, present and future?

I ask you, do you think the military is just being horrifyingly clumsy and wrong-headed in conducting a war that is clearly exponentially escalating not ending massive global conflict and destruction? Under crazymakingly, again, the very leadership of a President who won the election because he guaranteed us he would END THE MADNESS, these horrifying wars?

Is there anyone left on the planet, even among the U.S. jingoists and xenophobes, who does not understand at least vaguely the cynical motivations of these corporate-driven wars?

There is a sure-fired method to the military madness! And it is MADNESS! Human lives sacrificed or at best tragically diminished, whether foreign born and in the U.S. path for dominance, or our own troops and those troops in the future doomed to die under this psychopathic policy, as well as we citizens and future American citizens yet to be born who will suffer the consequences of the inevitable escalation of profound revenge by the many U.S.-violated foreign human beings while American citizens are abroad or soon enough more and more domestically. All from this monstrous, U.S.-inspired terrorism, from U.S. genocidal programs for power.

Of course it is election season so inventorying the Obama administration in terms of THE ABOVE EXPLAINED PERPETUAL BLOOD AND MONEY SUCKING WARS is considered an annoying, off topic distraction by earnest, legacy oligarch-puppet politicians, oligarch-puppet media and even fellow, and I use the term loosely in their case, "progressives". An exercise in futility!

Those in the Democratic ruling party and their enablers are hysterical at the Tea Party oligarch-puppet candidates running, and the faux-progressives and Blue Dog Dems and enablers are distracting the citizenry once again by pointing away from their own profound criminal enablings. CRIMINAL! We are talking international war crimes.

Some of these Tea Party insaniacs actually have a good shot of achieving victory. Not only because of the flood of dirty money pouring in from corporations, domestic and global, but more likely because of the domestic and military betrayals of our Democratic representatives-in-name-only. So, those of us trying to call out the largest elephant in the room, there are so many, but U.S. acts of genocide I'd say is a formidable one, deserve a hearing. We do not deserve to be vilified as traitors handing over the government to amoral monsters by slowing down the election game momentum with our LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS REGARDING GLOBAL SURVIVAL! Besides, our government is already in the hands of amoral monsters -- in my humble opinion. So we need to focus not on the nuts falling out of the trees, so to speak, but the rotteness of the "roots" sustaining the trees. The War/Money parties' mutual, long-range diabolical agenda! We must fathom and fight the Military Industrial/Security Complex killing machine.

We listen to the avalanche of pre-election words from legacy politicians and their apologists about helping the middle and working class Americans. This rhetoric is hollow. Again, it is from criminal betrayers. But the ruling class is cronied up and only those of us not in power are calling out truth, reality and morality. Except for the, you would think impressive, Wikileaks avalanches of war crime evidence the military matrix path to global destruction seems an easy cakewalk.

After so much betrayal, it is astonishing that even the so-called progressive media is cherry-picking issues that flatter the Dems and blacking-out issues that should not be ignored. They have stopped even asking for a token minimal degree of accountability for the policies of the not-new-anymore administration.

Because -- well, GAME ON!!!! -- the Dems must win this election and keep the country out of the hands of the amoral insaniacs.

Will the legacy Dems stop the war as opposed to the Tea Partiers or the Republicans? No. Will they prevent more wars, say, with Iran? Probably not. If they had seriously wanted to end the wars, they would have immediately begun to, seriously, I am saying, with the election of Obama. Instead, crickets.

In fact, the U.S. global predatory killing machine is not slowing down on Obama’s watch. It is escalating. And sadly, the outcries against the wars have lessened much to the horror of activists of conscience. Ask Cindy Sheehan.

Ted Rall recently posed a riddle: What is the difference between the Bush and Obama regimes?

Answer: Opposition.

Process that one for a sec emotionally. Gulp. The critical mass of citizens that could recover our country are all stuck somewhere in the continuum of the five stages of grief post the Obama election. We can't afford that kind of time. SNAP OUT OF IT, PLEASE!!!!

The American collective conscience became an easy and tragic casualty of war a serious while back. I say, let’s revive it while there may still be a small window of time. Let’s try to revive it even if there is not, simply because it is the humane and sane, spiritual thing to do.

No votes yet


letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

After so much betrayal, it is astonishing that even the so-called progressive media is cherry-picking issues that flatter the Dems and blacking-out issues that should not be ignored. They have stopped even asking for a token minimal degree of accountability for the policies of the not-new-anymore administration.

It is astonishing, everyone in the veal pen organizations is so calculating about their political strategy, that they have no place for conscience on anything outside their own pet issue. Their minds, spirits, and consciounesses are all fragmented, so they have no energy left for a broader movement. Thanks libby.

Submitted by libbyliberal on

It is astonishing, everyone in the veal pen organizations is so calculating about their political strategy, that they have no place for conscience on anything outside their own pet issue. Their minds, spirits, and consciounesses are all fragmented, so they have no energy left for a broader movement.

Yes, it is not that progresssives are not astute about CERTAIN things. It is that compartmentalization that is so disturbing.

I wish there were a big tent for protesting so that the anti-war and pro-universal health care people, and women's rights activists, and pro-union people and animal rights activists, climate change environmentalists, etc., etc., etc., and everyone else could get on the same page. Mike Gravel says that Congress and the administration will never listen until 65 million people are asking for the SAME thing at the SAME time. And that doesn't happen, that kind of critical mass, unless maybe once in a lifetime, or if you have a passionate leader like MLK, but then look what they did to him. People are angry and people protest and write letters, but we get divided up fighting the personal fresh hells nearest us. The environmental movement globally is finally beginning to bond and use its awareness to fight big corporations and rally country to country. We must learn that, too.

I have been watching my local NYC news deliberately ice out the Green candidate, Howie Hawkins from any mention after the governor's debate. As if he does not exist. It is eerie. His platform is for universal health care, ending the wars, unions, raising the minimum wage, etc., is just too troublingly extreme and humane and ANTI-corporate.

I am shocked when I leaflet there is so little acknowledgement and people seem pretty zombied out when they pass by and many ignore me.

twig's picture
Submitted by twig on

because the whole topic of "too many issues at once" is really troubling. I have a (probably crazy) theory that one reason for continuing all the Bush programs and letting so many things devolve into chaos is exactly what you and lets point out -- it fractures attention and keeps the numbers of people who object to one thing or another smaller.

Just think about your inbox, which is probably the same as mine. Every day, there are literally dozens of emails about desperately urgent situations that need to be addressed: state and federal legislation we should call about, veteran suicides, the environment, Haiti, the Gulf, filthy water in the third world, wild horse populations on the brink of being decimated, jobs being sent overseas, etc. etc. etc. I don't need to itemize them for you or anyone else here.

Even if you had unlimited resources, it's impossible to help out with all the causes that need attention. And the overwhelming nature of our situation makes a lot of people shut down. I can't tell you how many times I've heard variations on the line "there's nothing you or I can do about it, so just forget it."

Great. So now we're in Chinatown, where the rich get away with murder, only this time it's not a movie. And we should forget about it? Don't think so.

What I'm wondering is how do those of us who refuse to give up focus our energy for maximum effect? The "choose your battle" approach just fragments us. Your "big tent" idea is much more appealing. Something like that would increase the number of people involved. Or would it? Do things have to become truly dire (which they already are, if you're paying attention) before there's an actual resistance movement? Are there 65 million people willing to go this route? Or are most people just too weary/self-involved/lazy/anti-hippie/busy working three part-time jobs to do something like this? AND how do you get the kids?? Looking at footage of the strikes in France recently, all I saw was young people! If kids here are having a hard time getting jobs, shouldn't they be onboard with this? Or am I dreaming?

Submitted by libbyliberal on

I used to have this serene outlook, that everything fell into place. People found their best niches for what they gave in terms of charity. Some of us got involved with animal rights, some of us did volunteer work with troubled teens (mine for a long time), some of us focused on climate change, etc., etc., etc. And it helped make the world go round as a better place. You give from your best interests and gifts. Ripples of empathy going outward. God divides in interests and focuses of empathy and it ripples out in an expanding and wholesome way.

But we are dealing now with supersized evil. Evil. It is the monster BLOB eating away our social fabric and that of the world as Engelhardt provides in his detailed analysis.

We really do need ombudsmen and ombudswomen to help bridge us together and not separate us and a strong feminine paradigm shift (Marion Woodman's theory) to partnership and cooperation away from patriarchal power, competition and control.

Okay, ideally that moral leader with the big umbrella would have been Obama in a perfect, American apple pie, remember the Peace Corps and civil and human rights are a priority world. A nice dream. We had a dream of change and it turned nightmare of status quo and worse.

Some refuse to wake up and recognize it as a nightmare. We need to find our collective heart and awaken our national imagination again and be smarter this time and more fully committed and not leave nation-repair to others. I'm not kidding when I am talking about nationally having to push through levels of grief. But "people of the lie" still keep saying "trust us, we know best, and we got the power and we got the media." We have a big ol' box and bubble to think out of and beyond. The idiot box and the Beltway anti-empathy bubble.

Now we need to work it out among ourselves and dismantle the sabotaging by the media and the legacy Dem party and their hypnosis that they are the only effective or potentially effective game in town. The universal healthcare advocates got burned by legacy Dems, Lucy and football progressives, and they are out there licking their collective wound and planning their long term goals, but I think many of them also did not want to or could not naturally switch tracks and bond with DFH anti-war types which saddened me.

Some are though. Still in civil warrior mode against a corrupt establishment. Hey, The California nurses? I have heard great things about their going after Whitman's hypocrisy. Isn't that right out there?

But many of the rank and file for healthcare, they just didn't seem to identify or expand to the general oppression say re the war, or even their great leaders could have kept on leading, and maybe they are, maybe I drifted from them now? hmmm.

I mean, the fight was noble and we all expanded and I am sure they are doing their good work locally, too, now so I am being maybe too pessimistic. And some were mutually committed to various liberal causes but as if wearing different hats. But it wasn't a natural yet gravitational pull among all of us to a critical mass under one big tent. And there are even dozens of anti-war groups working parallel for the cause. I have been following "world can't wait" and they are doing their thing strongly and I know working with vets groups and other groups, and they do pull in harness at events with others, but still different hats which is more functional than a huge tent I guess.

And there are the 9/11 truthers and sometimes they go too far for some of the activists (though the older I get the more willing I get to stop calling outrageous theories of governmental betrayal too-far out "conspiracy theories.") And union organizing? That has been branded by media and pols as negative. Yeah, when corruption invades it is not good and when negative branding of something wholesome and good is so relentlessly done on the idea of unions, on Nader, on the word "liberal", "socialism", "feminism", etc., it is hard to coax people back.

As I watch Maddow and Olbermann cherry-picking good issues absolutely but not going near the "third rail" VITAL issues at times because the corporate leash and their own self-serving denial will not abide fully embracing reality and rallying people deeply and truthfully. Amy Goodman seems to go the distance. I liked how Bill Moyers was willing to takes his risks though some people have issues with him I have heard. Anyway, the electioneering right now of the desperate pro-Dem progressives is insulting the reality-based base or ex-base of true liberal progressives, those of us marginalized who are willing to fight the full systemic corruption of America.

A new comrade from the Greens, just wrote me and suggested I blog a column about how the Greens love women! And that is surely different from the legacy Dems with how women's rights have been tossed under the bus. I hope I get a chance to follow up on that. But could the Greens be a big tent. I think we need a big tent! And the Green party even has parties in other countries. Would love to have a "citizens without borders" but that is yet another email in your in-box, eh (you are so right, and the guilt I feel not following up on so many of them) ...

It is good we are thinking about this. And I love that so many people visit so many other blogs also and kind of cross-pollinate with true liberal ideas.

As for the kids! Wow. That is where the power comes or rather could come. High school kids and college kids or twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings wherever (still kids to me) can MOVE THE WORLD!!! I mean, Lyndon Johnson got it because the anti-viet nam kids kept hammering away ... and look at how many people had to die before that critical mass penetrated the status quo, but it did penetrate and then it had some good force for governmental accountability for a while until we lost interest and focus and the neocon addicts and the Reaganite backlash against the uppity liberals blewback.

And twig, the kids were the ones who pushed the election for Obama across the finish line. They yearned for a leader with values and trustworthy and away from the status quo. And now they must embrace they were wrong and hoodwinked but not to give up the faith and stay with the MARATHON, and that is tough when the oldsters are not doing that great at role modeling for them or helping their transition to adulthood seriously with jobs and with education. And look at the horror of a military career. Come and be all that we can dehumanize you to be!!!

So, we need to pick our battles as individuals but also collectively, on this website clearly there are a lot of areas we share about. But I am grateful we are not fragmented when it comes to the war/money parties' hypocrisy. The people of the lie as Scott Peck wrote about!

Local work, walking the walk there, is vital. Communication here is also walking the walk and vital. Partnership and cooperation. Getting Julia Williams into office. Pushing the Greens is a serious way to go.

I love the expression, life really begins at the end of your comfort zone. We must rally our hearts to go there in terms of courage, and sadly, the world situation is pushing us there economically speaking to the end of our comfort zone! Morality has a price and clearly many of whom we thought were the best and the brightest sold out. Doesn't mean we have to.

to be continued, my friend! thanks.

Submitted by Nancy Van Ness on

Thank you for the research that allowed you to show this truly horrifying reality that is so little elucidated.

Two instances of the failure of government social service agencies that should be helping people in need--a very sick elderly person and a teenager at risk and her teacher--have taken my attention today. This willed failure of government at all levels domestically in the US is the other side of the coin. The desired wars and the corporations that benefit eat up the resources that could be taking care of legitimate things at home. The "kill the beast" policy has worked quite effectively.

It is past time for US citizens to take action and resist. As you say, opposition to US policy is imperative: wars and torture must be stopped, domestic issues must be addressed.

This system does not work. We need another.

Submitted by libbyliberal on

Thanks for responding. A lot of material here and when I got to Engelhardt I threw in so much because his article certainly does not reflect a chaotic and "obtuse" military trying to do even close to the "right thing" internationally -- but a sociopathic one, a chillingly deliberate, calculating one, following the psychopathic needs of corporate opportunists contracting everything, especially their expensive toy killing machines. Pure psychopathic patriarchy, addiction to power on supersonic steroids, gobbling up the surface of the globe. Addicts have no moral conscience. The addiction consumes the conscience. And the troops are treated as total CANNON FODDER as well as the foreign innocents they are dehumanized in their training to kill.

So as we struggle at home, these austerity hawks on both sides of aisle (Dems playing the more apologetic good cops in the scenario but all kabuki for corporatism) drumbeat for more war and are millionaires, successfully bribed by the psychopathic corporatists, to sell out American citizens and human beings around the globe.

So foreign people have been dying, troops have been dying, more and more US citizens will die, many having died already but what the hey ... that is not worthy of news or attention on CORPORATE media.

Submitted by Hugh on

As you point out, we have this vast military-industrial-intelligence-political apparatus invested in war. Wars underwrite its budgets, power, and prestige. Unsurprisingly, then that it always finds wars to justify all of these.

Submitted by libbyliberal on

Yes, military monster corporatism is a Frankenstein that Eisenhower recognized. The Frankenstein has been operating (destroying) off site but now with homeland security, it comes home to us.

So, what did they say recently? 800,000 new employees for homeland security needing to justify their paychecks by rooting out domestic terrorists? Ya think the parameters of what constitutes a domestic terrorist might get loosened by this? People of conscience and sanity, uppity troublemakers, might start or maybe not start making some sweeping and generalized but highly "inconvenient" watch lists or worse? Accident waiting or in some cases already happening.

Some alternate journalists are calling it the Nazification of America.

The anti-war movement has its passionate core, but where are the people, the people who were there a second ago it feels like calling out Bush, so enraged? Obama as Prez ... God, this is greater than Reagan's "teflonism". Crickets for the most part. Is it cynicism combined with remnants of such brand identification with Obama before his betrayal people can't separate themselves out again it was so symbiotic and now troublingly and hauntingly and mind-numbingly confounding that he is a liar about being a serious advocate for real citizens, still lying. And the Dems in Congress are just a bunch of lemmings for corporations. Reality is hard to embrace.

18 troops a day last I heard were committing suicide from the insanity of the military culture. Does not seem to be a priority to the powers that be. Not worthy of news. Oh, I forget. TV doesn't like to talk about reality news too much, unless just a sound bite titillation. It goes for politics as a game, a sport.

Homeland security culture, will go for dehumanizing acculturation, too, in this anti-feeling patriarchy.

twig's picture
Submitted by twig on

But here's one good place:

Ted Rall recently posed a riddle: What is the difference between the Bush and Obama regimes?

Answer: Opposition.

Zactly! Whatever happened to the anti-war crowd? When Bush was around, there were some protests, including a group here that went to one of LA's busiest intersections on Sundays. Lots of drivers honking and waving at us, but no media coverage -- not even local stations or radio, nothing.

Of course, there were no celebrities, so who would be interested? Actually, there were never more than maybe 30 people, most of them old enough to have protested Vietnam. You could count the number of young people on one hand -- seriously. And we were literally across the street from UCLA!!!!

Eventually, people just stopped showing up. And now, the whole anti-war movement seems to be either comatose or a well-kept secret. Meanwhile, as you point out, the madness goes on. Except now we've got the added bonus of the deficit hawks screaming for fiscal restraint without ever once mentioning the bloated military/defense budget. It certainly does seem like the real goal is to enrage enough people so that at least a few will try to retaliate. And then they can point at some kid who blew his underwear to pieces and tell us how they saved us from the scary scary terrist!! (Actually, one of the best moments in tv "news" was hearing some pundit talking about how they "saved" Detroit!!! Holy cow, guess he hasn't been to Detroit lately -- it's been gone for quite a while.)

Anyway, thanks for this, lib! So nice to know there're still a few sane people around who notice things like this.

Submitted by libbyliberal on

Actually, one of the best moments in tv "news" was hearing some pundit talking about how they "saved" Detroit!!! Holy cow, guess he hasn't been to Detroit lately -- it's been gone for quite a while.

How droll are you writing this! Great irony. Thanks for your comments as always.

Yes, twig. I am in NYC and I think of NYC as being more politically sophisticated with more iconoclastic types to not put up with bs. And yet nada. Or not much.

I admire the anti-war people of conscience and attend some demonstrations. But I am appalled that there are not more people walking this walk, considering the horrors the US is perpetrating on foreigners and its own soldiers.

Last night I attended a webcast of World Can't Wait which is working hard nationally. I will add the link, it was so consciousness raising. About wikileaks' collateral murder video and the assassination program. There were only a handful of us in the room so I am glad it was on webcast and can still be seen. I plan to do a blog about it soon. Also, there was a man there arranging a protest of a drone exec's home in Greenwich, CT this coming Saturday. The drone manufacturing is gallopping along. It is like we are living in a science fiction nightmare.

World Can't Wait Webcast. Screening of Collateral Murder, posted by in 2010 Commentary by Ethan McCord, dissident veteran of Bravo Company 2-16, the unit involved in killing 12 Iraqi civilians in the Collateral Murder video from 2007. The Case Against Targeted Assassinations by the U.S.: Pardiss Kebriaei, staff attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights.

We have to keep our consciousnesses raised and ripple out the truth. So grateful to get to come to corrente for a wakeful community, educating each other.