War
For every quirk of man’s nature, there’ll be a leech or succubus to feed it and profit from it, hence the queer existence of standing armies, mercenaries, and other trappings of war.
George Orwell understood that war is to destroy things and keep the people impoverished, at a far lower standard of living, so they’re less comfortable and won’t be able to pose a threat to the ruling powers.
The world has had ample time to figure this out, and it still is only understood on a superficial level, a pithy observation, like a stand-up comedian’s joke, it just passes through the air, dawdles about for a split second, then disappears forever.
Mankind only understands war as long as it is something distant and abstract. As soon as some event can be posed as a personal threat, all the pacifism, goodwill and appeasement goes out the window.
Maybe a good old truth bomb will help some people with their perception of this age-old farce.
The King’s Speech movie certainly showed how gossamer their deceptions are. The king had to report to the gullible Brits that they were, “forced into war...” Britain wasn’t being invaded, so any urgency had to be pure speculation. There were many alternatives — embargo, trade sanctions, anything requiring both sides to sit down and iron out their grievances.
Leaders used to lead from the front, not protected little hideaways. In the past, at least we’re told, the generals and leaders would serve with their troops, on the front lines. The same should be true today, or else any war is illegitimate. If the politicians and their families aren’t “serving” as well, in real places of peril, there’s simply no check and balance on what those same politicians can conjure up, the problems they can lead us into. So, for a start, the “leaders” must, once more, return to active roles instead of being safely ensconced behind their big yaps. Not optional.
If we really want war to stop, all that needs to happen is for everyone to learn the full truth about war. How simple can you get?
As always, we’re faced with a situation where there’s confusion about what a word or term really means.
“War” is not the dictionary definition of, “Armed hostility between nations or factions,” not really. It can take a lot of shapes and forms.
Another term we don’t understand, but is connected to war, is, “national debt.” It isn’t what a nation “owes.” It really means that they will take your money. Or they will take your blood.
Confusion
One of the stupidest, though catchy, songs you’ll ever hear is The Temptations, “War - What Is It Good For?” Edwin Starr and Frankie Goes to Hollywood did famous cover versions. The vehement answer is, “Absolutely Nothing!” What a bunch of claptrap! Obviously it is good for something, or it wouldn’t be so prevalent!
If you had ambition and could find a bunch of gullible and obedient saps to kill for you, you might find some utility in it yourself.
Those who don’t understand that all this “anti-war” stuff, be it song, lecture, article, what have you, is, perversely, pro-war, will always be played for a sucker.
Even ignoring the fact that this type of so-called “protest” is allowed, condoned, even encouraged, just the fact that it is a lie is enough to make it wrong. Oh the pukey saps that write and sing it may have all the best intentions, but intent doesn’t change facts.
Your so-called friends are often your enemies, or, they push the agendas of your enemies. So it is with, for example, the “We the people here don’t want no war” goon, who sang his anti-war, “Simple Song of Freedom.” Certainly no one wants war against himself you minstrelling misfit! We were inundated with crap like this as children. Stuff like “One Tin Soldier” and “Billy, Don’t Be a Hero” are themselves a war. Against your ears. There are some better-sounding ones, like “War Pigs” by Black Sabbath, or the already mentioned Starr rendition, but they provide nothing of value we didn’t already know. They’re opportunistic, arriving when the mood was already “anti-war,” so it came down to just pandering to the times.
When they want to deliberately wind down their wars, they simply gin up the entertainment aspect, and push anti-war nonsense (so long as it doesn’t get to the heart of the matter). Then, when they do end a conflict, the simps, laughably, think they had something to do with it! That they “made a difference!” It diffuses and disperses energy that might have been more productively deployed. This playing with people’s minds is very similar to herding sheep, hence the term, “sheeple.” Just the implication that you’re going to oppose an organized crime industry with your little sing-song is foolish and insulting.
In war, big corporations profit from government contracts, the people that work for those companies profit... And yet it still is supposedly confusing why “war” persists? It isn’t actually war, it’s controlled slaughter, culling, a spectacle, a distraction, a money-making scheme, anything but a settling of legitimate grievances.
You’re not going to stop those who want an excuse to “go to war,” nor stop the profit motive that drives them to create more war.
War: it’s not that it is ridiculous, but that we’re misled to thinking it’s something it’s not.
The correct approach is to ask, when is war good for something? How can war be used correctly?
The Rising Specter of War
And now, to the surprise of no one that was paying attention, the specter of war rolls around yet again.
They’ll stage some nonsense outrage, and the majority will fall for it, yet again, though it’ll be hard to top the absurdity they concocted to trigger WWI. “Oh, they killed the archduke in some foreign country so let’s all the world go to war and kill everybody!” Yes, it’s hard to grasp, but the (possibly faked) assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria is to this day peddled as the excuse to get WWI started. What sort of pissants fall for a ruse like that?
What would a rational people do about that intrigue with the archduke? Start an international manhunt for the killers, obviously. Set up a big, multi-national task force to find and prosecute the assassin(s), and discover the backers and purpose behind the plot.
As a rationalization and justification, in the U.S., where, rightfully, many were resisting getting embroiled in yet another foreign conflict, they concocted a story that America’s (delayed) entry to WWI was, “to end all wars,” and “to make the world safe for democracy.”
They have to always have some “conflict brewing,” for convenience, if they need a distraction or other excuse for control, depopulation, distraction, profiteering, punishment...
And so, they’re gearing up for another conflict, making mountains out of molehills, once more. But “the suckers aren’t buying it this time.”
No, today’s simps simply will not go to war. Absolutely not — until they hear their master’s voice command it.
It’s always the same. They peddle the notion that there will be firm resistance to any wide-scale armed conflict, “this time.” But simps gotta simp, so there won’t be any significant backlash. WWI was waged on that most flimsy of pretexts, and back then the suckers “weren’t buying it,” either. So you can rely that there is yet another “trigger event” in the works.
Assuage the Conscience
War will be always presented, packaged as though everyone is at risk, and suffering. There’s an old story how the Queen Mother in solidarity with the beleaguered World War II Londoners said, “We can’t leave London while people are at risk.” Reportedly:
The family’s refusal to flee Britain against Foreign Office Advice and the September 13 (1940) bombing elevated the monarchs in the eyes of the public.
Praised for sharing their subjects’ hardship, the Queen Mother was prompted to express her solidarity with her fellow Londoners.
“I am glad we have been bombed,” she famously announced.
“It makes me feel I can look the East End in the face.”
Hell’s bells, people will believe anything. Reality dose: no one wants to be put through trauma, by definition, no one. If your house burns down, do you say it was a happy event you could share with other victims of house fires? So why state an obvious lie? Because if you’re going to lie, might as well do a full court press of it.
Then there was the “Lady Di ‘humanitarian efforts against war,’” hoax, a modern version of this. Well, again, everyone is “against war,” unless they’re a mercenary of some kind! The whole “Lady Di” thing seems to have been an attempt to humanize (or the reverse), royalty.
Old headline: “Threat of nuclear war been averted with Trump’s election.” However, they already told you, publicly, years ago, that they were going to “reintroduce the Cold War,” as a political tool. That may have not been on the front page, but it is accessible to anyone who does a little research. It’s all a charade, and we are, and always were, the actual enemy.
Some pundit said it is a deliberate human sacrifice. Of course it is, when it is never really a war against a “country,” it’s always war against the people of a geographic area called a country.
There is never a war declared against the government of a nation. It’s only “war against Japan,” or “war against the Congo,” or something. It isn’t the “nation” that gets fragged, since “the nation” is an abstract, it’s really some poor sap that gets the hell bombed out of him. Never the politicians, for some reason, and that is really inexplicable. Wouldn’t they be the first targets? The only targets? What else makes any sense?
War kills civilians, so wars are always wars against (relatively) innocent civilians.
This means that war was long ago planned to be a depopulation method, with the national governments being one organ that coordinates all this but spares the political and “special” classes.
So what about the “London bombings” in WWII then? Supposedly the V-1 and V-2 rockets were just pell-mell randomly hitting anywhere and everywhere in London. A suppressed story is that those explosions were, in reality, caused by official elements within the city, that could plant bombs unhindered. Fire off a few fireworks, then everyone is forced into shelters, so the plotters could conduct their mayhem unseen, explode their bombs and what have you. The dopes fall for it every time. The V rockets were apparently just a lie, a sensible explanation, because these contraptions seem to have been strangely accurate (and conveniently missed such things as fancy castles).
Two very peculiar points stand out in the midst of these peculiar tales: “delayed-action” bombs and, reported by thelocal.de, “The Queen Mother describes going to fetch the King to move to a bomb shelter during one such bombing, but being delayed by his insistence that she help him remove an eyelash from his eye.” Again, just nuttiness and mockery. Regarding the bombs, those things were supposedly crashing at rapid speeds. How and why would you “delay the action” of such primitive devices when you would be happy if they exploded at all? Obviously the “delayed action” dodge would be convenient if you had your fireworks glaring, shrieking by overhead, but no immediate explosions, then the planted, ill-timed one suddenly goes off. “That's weird! What happened?” “Oh, just stop with the crazy conspiracy theories! Nothing to see there, it was a delayed action!”
If “politicians” are going to start a war, they’re going to make damn sure they’re not going to be the ones to suffer from it (and, that they’re going to be the ones to profit off of it). So the onus is on the average citizen to investigate, and find out if that’s what’s happening in modern times.
Death Wish
Do proles march off to war at the drop of a hat, simply because they are not fully souled and therefore have a death wish? Feeling incomplete? Wanting to change themselves, somehow? Simply to “feel something?”
Also, we have to consider the mental status of the population, which Yuri Bezmenov exposed as ideologically subverted (as described in the article, The Manipulators 1). “What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.”
A demoralized population is one more likely to fall into the trap of being suckered into war, and perhaps it requires a population to be demoralized in order to make it as malleable. In other words, one of the purposes/exploitable consequences of demoralization is to make it readily accepting of war.
War Signals
The Sad Realization: No Cognitive Dissonance
We are told when and where to murder people, and you go along – society goes along – without protest, without a peep. And it looks like this is true for all recorded time.
But wait a minute... isn’t murder wrong?
And it is, unless it isn’t labeled as murder, like when it’s called “war.” Then it’s just “killing.” And you’ll then hear, suddenly, that killing is justified in some cases – after endlessly having “violence is always wrong,” and “turn the other cheek” hammered into us.
But what about when some other guy tells you that you need to kill someone you don’t know, someone that’s not a clear and obvious threat, on that other guy’s say so?
Why not step up, and own the assertion, then? If you accept that there is some external threat, from another country, it is only prudent to take the idea to heart and take the initiative.
But instead of just suiting up and digging a foxhole, it means a whole lot of other preparation is required. You’ll need to talk about how we’ll need people to arm up and prepare in their own neighborhoods, because if the threat is that insidious, whether it be from a guy in a cave in some place no one can find on a map, or an Asian dirt farmer yoking oxen in the rice paddy, we’ll need to have everyone prepared.
We would need to set up a plan for the case of invasion. Suppose that farmer loaded his oxen up on a makeshift, lashed-together bamboo raft, and started “riding the waves” over here in a surprise attack? How should we set up traps, decoys and defense perimeters?
What if we lose? We had better get a team of our best working on a plan so we can at least surrender with dignity.
If we are in a situation where we need to go to war, a serious situation, why are we not all involved in prepping for it, gearing up, and getting industry on a war footing?
That is, what about the logistics?
It means we’d better start saving scrap, instead of wasting it. Prepare to equip and supply soldiers. Get the hospitals prepared for war casualties. What about preparations for prisoners of war? What about supplies, provisions? And on and on and on.
And have the great debaters come forth, in a mission to the foreign land, to discuss, argue and perhaps reach a compromise with the baddies.
But seriously: If you need to go to war, against whomever it might be, you do have to consider these things. You really do.
Unless... it’s just bullying.
Or, unless, it’s not a real war, but fakery being couched in terms that cloak the real agenda.
U.S. president George W. Bush told everyone to, “Just go shop in the mall,” while at the same time proclaiming the imminent danger of Al-Quaeda and need to attack Afghanistan, pronto. (And then it morphed into Iraq, somehow.)
However, the same rules applied in the 9/11 incident as in other conflicts. If their intelligence apparatus failed, allowing the New York and Washington D.C. attacks, then there was no way of ensuring the assumption by that same “Intelligence,” that Afghans had been involved. But if Al Queda exists, and your “intelligence reports” aren’t wrong there too, you would, rationally, simply enlist the government of Afghanistan to assist in apprehending the perps, not just go to war with reckless abandon. You would present all your evidence to the American people, and seek assistance and guidance toward a resolution. (Although the fact is, after a failure of that magnitude, the entire government needed to be replaced and restructured.)
But, let’s just say people got smart, and demanded that we use statesmen to reach a compromise, to avoid a war in the first place. The first thing you’d hear would be their old fallback, “Oh, you can’t reason with those, those... savages.” (Hence the use of propaganda in war, to demonize the opponent.)
How soon they forget their own propaganda, broadcast every day on the squawkbox, that in a multi-cultural world, “We’re all alike!”
If you say we need to get on a war footing at home, if those foreign people are a threat, you’ll hear: “Oh, let the army deal with it. That’s what it’s for, after all!”
Waitaminitt! Didn’t we just hear, that those tricky bastiches might be anywhere? Like, places where the army may not be.
Why the hell wouldn’t you plan and prepare for an invasion? Isn’t it, at the very least, irresponsible, not to?
Another point that needs consideration: Before anyone thinks of joining the military, their first priority should be to ensure everyone is armed and prepared on the home front.
All Moot
So we arrive at the depressing truth that, ultimately, discussion of war is moot, because all of the facts are out there, just waiting for anyone with a modicum of interest to see.
Despite that, there will always be willing suckers for the machine, and, since some do see, there will always be incredulous onlookers.
The cat was out of the bag long ago, when General Smedley Butler said that “war is a racket.” Of course, the conning apologists and warmongers would tell us he was “crazy.”
An impulse to want to “fight for what is right,” can be readily exploited to herd people into war with cries of “Patriotism,” and “Justice,” and so on. Every war has had someone on the sidelines, telling the rest to “look before you leap,” and ensure that the cause really is just. But those spokesmen are derided as “unpatriotic,” “subversive,” “craven,” “wackos.”
It may well be that all of the wars in the last century were unnecessary. Yet the fools went and got themselves killed without an inkling. Without a single wisp of desire to confirm the claims made by the warring parties.
What happened, is they fell prey to those who would exploit their egregious zones. In those cases, it was the need of people to feel loyal, faithful and true. To fit in and embrace “the community,” or “their people.”
Of course, war will come as a welcome relief when they freeze the economy and crash currencies. Then, as always, governments will suddenly have plenty of money for war.
Allegiance has to be to truth. Whatever form it may come in.
Comments