Our economy long ago abandoned
producing functional things that people need and became dependent on people
buying things they want. And when the economic model reached the breaking point
it has rescued itself through various means. In the 1980's as Capitalism
reached its limits with the American framework, new doors were opened through
outsourcing and easy credit. In the 1990's a new economic energy was generated
via the Internet which made the potential of globalism more accessible to small
businesses and individual entrepreneurs. Today there are new adjustments taking
place that allow the economy to continue to function, but clearly the limits
are being stretched to the breaking point.
Even those who would look back
to the halcyon days of the 1950's and 1960's when the United States sat atop
the industrial world in the realms of production need to look again. It was an
age when Unions were strong, a factory job meant middle class status, and even
average people had good benefits and could take good vacations and yet it was ultimately
unsustainable.[i]
The reality is Europe (in
particular Germany) was destroyed and still rebuilding, and in the East, Japan
was also still in a state of post-war restructuring. When these two competitors
came into their own (let alone the later addition of China under Deng Xiaoping)
and were able to stand economically, the United States now faced stiff
competition and the American system began to fail and slowly collapse.
Once again Europe spent its
money on infrastructure and building social programmes and thus even though
they never attained the economic magnitude of the United States, they were able
to sustain solid economies with a very high standard of living. Americans who
have visited Western Europe have seen this with their own eyes and are left
puzzled at the high quality of construction and goods, as well as the standard
of living and the cleanliness that is found there compared to most of the
United States.
American Conservative
Euro-haters will often point out that Europe was able to sustain the welfare
state because America provided their security. We sacrificed, building bases,
tanks, submarines, and jets so Europeans could have free health care, state
pensions, month-long vacations, and the best mass transit system in the world.
Of course the European take on
this is quite different. While Europe has always been grateful for the benefits
that came with the Marshall plan, many Europeans and many other nations around
the world have realized American generosity comes at a great price and in fact
in many cases is not generous at all.
No government ever gives away
their treasure out of the goodness of their heart. The Cold War paradigm was
built on several and sometimes blatant misconceptions, falsehoods, and outright
deceptions. The Soviets indeed had their satellites, but the United States no
less so. American assistance meant American dominance and intrusion. The
Italians found this out when their elections were corrupted. The French found
this out when the United States intervened in their post-colonial affairs and ultimately
the CIA participated in an assassination plot against DeGaulle. These actions
led France to withdraw from NATO and in many ways was the genesis of the
antagonism that continues to this day. The French are personally offended that
the Americans have claimed the mantle of democracy. They find many American actions
and institutions to be completely contrary to democratic principles and instead
resemble class oppression and exploitation.
American Conservatives are
always fearful of international and globalist organizations. They are convinced
that somehow they're going to end up subverting and ultimately overthrowing
American sovereignty. They're ascribing too much to those who head these organizations
and underestimating the strength of will and ruthlessness behind the power-base
that undergirds the American Establishment. The powers that be, which built the
American Empire, are not for one moment going to just up and surrender the
power and wealth they've accumulated. Nor will the politicians they control. These
international organizations, from the IMF to the United Nations and even NATO
are in the end, tools, mechanisms the powers use to run the empire. Unilateral
centralized control brings transparency and responsibility. Rule through
secondary means allows the elite to cloud motives, divide costs and
responsibilities (on a micro level) and serves various other functional and
practical purposes. These organizations have historically served as puppets for
the American (dominant) interest.
This explains France's
hostility and their withdrawal from NATO. They realized what others knew and
yet were more than willing to accept....Western Europe was an American Satellite.
Using covert operations has allowed the United States to maintain the
smokescreen of democracy. The Soviets never had to worry about the public
perception and so for them it was easier to just send in tanks. But once the
Cold War ended, even the challenge of perception fell by the wayside. The
United States could act with impunity.
As soon as the potential for
geo-political confrontation was removed, the Americans showed their true
colours to the deviationist Serbs. Tanks are a blunt tool. The Americans prefer
F-119’s and B-2’s. With a compliant American media, and stupid acquiescent
imperial grunts (like me at the time,) the whole situation can be spun and
sanitized. Europe’s new order was enforced with violence, and in the 1990’s the
United States demonstrated (morally) to the Russians, Serbs, and many others (like
China) that ethically the United States was no different than the Soviet regime
had been.
The American Geo-political
establishment wrongly read the situation in Asia. The birth of Red China in
1949 was viewed as the great Soviet prize, the great Communist grab. Only later
in the 1960's (and capitalized on by Nixon in 1972) did the American
Establishment realize there was no Communist International. It was a fiction.
Communism was a vehicle for post-Imperial and post-Colonial forces to gain
power. In the end, nationalism remained and within the Communist system there
were still hierarchies and classes.[ii]
The Soviet threat was largely a
fiction. Of course opponents will say this is a hindsight judgment. But the
reality is, the Soviet Union was never more than a Third World country with
nuclear weapons. Soviet aggression? The Brezhnev Doctrine was no more
aggressive than NATO policies. France was allowed to leave NATO but had France
really tried to subvert NATO further actions would have been taken. The
Americans always preferred to use covert action and subterfuge. Eisenhower did
much to establish and further these precedents. Certainly the 1950’s and 60’s
were a golden age for the malevolent spooks and murderers haunting the halls of
Langley.
The Soviets twice turned to
tanks in 1956 and 1968. But in terms of aggression, the only real overt Soviet
aggression was in the 1979 Afghanistan invasion. Originally the Americans knew
the Mujahideen were backed by Reagan. Then later the public learned they were
backed by Carter, but eventually we learned Brzezinski (Carter's NSA chief) had
been working to provoke the Soviets into invading. Remember it wasn't an
outright invasion. Afghanistan had a Communist regime that was in trouble. They
moved in to prop it up and apparently by their own admission, the Americans
were helping to create the instability leading to the invasion. The narrative
that the aggressive Soviets just attacked and invaded is a bit misleading.
Brzezinski was determined to give them their own Vietnam and his plan worked.
Of course he didn't care one
iota about the million or so who would die, nor the great regional turmoil it
unleashed which is still being felt today. This is the great crime of the Cold
War. The two Superpowers could never engage openly so they warred via proxy and
left a trail of carnage and betrayals all over the globe. Millions died and yet
millions of Americans are still convinced this lie was necessary to sustain our
freedom.[iii]
The reality is numerous Non-Aligned
countries rejected both systems and refused to ally themselves with either the
American or Soviet bloc, and they often were punished for doing so. While Bush
was the first to vocalize, "If you're not with us, then you're against
us," it functioned as a reality during the Cold War period. So much for
democracy.
Insiders knew Soviet power was
essentially a myth and it was painfully clear by the time Reagan came into
power. Nevertheless he embarked on a massive military buildup and the current Conservative
myth is that Thatcher, Reagan, and John Paul II 'defeated' the Soviet Union.
I'll say it again. This is a myth. The Soviet Union collapsed of its own accord.
The system was never actually Communist and it never worked. Reagan’s
brinkmanship was a frightening episode that made the Cold War almost hot again
and unraveled the period of Détente birthed by Nixon and Brezhnev.
Eisenhower warned of the
Military-Industrial Complex and the undue influence it would wield. He was
right to point out that it would affect every facet of society. Every missile
built meant a road that wasn't being built. Every tank meant a school or a
section of railroad. The consumer culture wedded to militarism has had a
profound effect on our society and as he warned... has certainly invaded and
greatly affected the Christian Church.[iv]
Military spending is viewed as
legitimate because it falls within the confines Nationalist Conservatives have
outlined for the state. And yet few have paused to consider at what point does
the spending lose legitimacy? At this point the United States spends more on
the entire military apparatus than the rest of the world combined.
Conservatives and especially Neo-Conservatives wish to continue raising the bar
and increase spending.
What is the purpose of the
military? Few American Conservatives would argue it exists to further the causes
of Empire and yet somehow they've convinced themselves (and many others) that
having dozens upon dozens of overseas bases (occupations) and spending vast
sums on equipping a worldwide military presence...is all somehow a necessary
defense to make 'us' safe. Somehow these bases ‘defend our freedom’ and secure
our liberties rather than provide a catalyst for conflict, an incentive to war
and breed resentment as the military and other US government agencies breed
resentment through espionage, secret wars, assassinations, and economic
policies which exploit other countries, undermine their governments, and
destabilize their societies.
Other countries that do not
engage in these policies do not need fleets of warships, thousands of fighter
jets, missiles and submarines because they have not waged a low-scale war on
the rest of the world.
The United States is the
world's number one arms dealer which is another tool of manipulation and
control. The United States is a terror to countries which will not bend to its
will which is often expressed in the interests of American dominated
multi-national corporations. Their interests are backed up by the CIA and the
United States military.
Why do so many people hate the
United States? Because much of the rest of the world understands that it is a
lie and a force for great evil. Why do people still flock here? It's Babylon,
the great whore. It's pretty enticing, people know what it is, but they often
still want it. And yet how many come and are disillusioned? How many come and
are internally torn? How many immigrants have I talked to who like fat, happy,
dumb Americans realizing the average citizen has no idea what their brutal and
evil government does elsewhere? They are torn, liking Americans but hating the
political system they support. Maybe some of these folks figure maybe they
should come here and make some money... and send home that money to their home
countries often suffering as a result of American policy? It’s ironic.
How many come here and proper
financially but feel they’ve lost their soul?
American militarism is a great
lie and a great evil and yet it is one of the foundational planks of our
economy.
And who benefits from it? Does
society as a whole or do certain people within certain sectors benefit from the
American war machine, every dime paid for with tax money? How many 401k’s are
invested in so-called Defense contractors which survive off of government
funding? These people can make tens of thousands and tens of millions but those
at the bottom of society who are paid unlivable wages are begrudged some basic
assistance. Multitudes make six-figure salaries all flowing from the tax
coffers and are viewed as legitimate members and contributors, while the
low-wage worker is a parasite if they take help for a heating bill or because
they have no health insurance end up at an Emergency Room with a bill they
cannot pay.
[i] Please do not assume I support Labour Unions. While I
understand why they arose and can sympathize with the workers who driven to
organize, as a Christian I have always and continue to possess serious
misgivings about being part of a Union. That said, I also have little sympathy
with the largely successful Right-wing attempts at eradicating them. Both sides
are dirty and both are morally compromised.
[iii] ‘We learn from history that we learn nothing from
history,’ said GB Shaw. It seems to be the case that all too often this
statement is sadly true. As Christians I think we can do better and even Shaw
would have most certainly said that history is a worthwhile endeavour. But the
more you learn, the more sorrow you will endure when you see how others
manipulate it and learn nothing from it.