Lionizing US Military Personnel

I do not know much about Caitlin Johnstone, although I suspect that anyone who describes herself as a "rogue journalist" is a bit self-promoting. Nonetheless, I agree with her recent article that there are no war heroes, only victims. American service personnel are victims of the profit seeking "military industrial complex."

She wrote:

The defense industry can not increase its profits unless it increases conflict. Thus, the US military continues to increase its reach around the globe, all for the alleged sake of our safety, security, and defense of our (and other's) freedoms. Look at this map of US military bases worldwide, of varying size:

Source

This is bunk. The US Department of Defense is creating enemies to fight, putting American service personnel in increasing danger, using them as pawns of a social fiction ("American heroes") to keep greasing the gear works of the US war machine.

Johnstone is correct: "We need to talk about this...The correct response to news of a US serviceman or woman dying in combat is not gratitude and patriotism. The correct response is rage at the people who put them in harm’s way. The longer we continue pretending that their deaths are a glorious, noble sacrifice and not an unforgivable outrage, the longer those flag-draped coffins will keep flying home."

My heart goes to US service personnel. Many serve in the military motivated by a sincere sense of duty. Bravo for them. My criticism is not toward the men and women in uniform, but the Defense Department that increasingly puts these folks in harms way, not to defend American freedoms, but to create enemies that the US must increasingly "defend" itself from. And, of course, this requires weapons. 

Throw in the "threats" of Russia and China, then the defense industry justifies expansive and costly ventures into new technologies --- technologies that are rationalized as being crucial for maintaining American freedoms. 

Perhaps we need to rename the US Defense Department, as "defense" is only nominal. 

No, I'm not anti-American. I'm very proud to be an American. The very fact that I have to state this demonstrates how too many Americans conflate support for the military industrial complex (although they'll view it as support for American military personnel) with being a good American -- a true patriot. 

I'm old enough to remember how Americans who protested the Vietnam War were considered traitors and radicals. But there are few today who, in hindsight, would support this excursion into Vietnam. Today, there are many "Vietnams" being fought under the same banner of insuring American freedoms and liberties and defending democracy around the world. We defend the US by attacking other nations. 

Strange. 

Using History As A Template

There are lessons to learn from history. In fact, I think that a study of history should guide a nation's foreign policy. A new foreign policy idea: a staff historian! Would President Bush have ordered the US invasion of Afghanistan if he had first consulted an historian or two? Possibly not. It is for not for no reason that Afghanistan is called the "graveyard of empires." And the US, after 17 years fighting in that desperate place, is proving this axiom true.

One of my favorite bloggers is Mish Shedlock. Mish writes about economic issues at Mish Talk: Global Economic Trend Analysis. The man is one of the most popular authors on economics on the Internet, and he knows his stuff. His latest post caught my eye.

Is he correct in his observation? Only time will tell, but the reality is that he (actually, Chris Martenson) is observing the increasing polarization of national and ethnic power bases in Europe, again, and this could very well lead to conflict. Not soon, perhaps, but in time.

As Mark Twain reputedly said, "history may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes." Why is this? I think that it is because human beings really never change. History is a record of the same human behaviors again and again. That is why military cadets still study the writings of the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (died 486 BC) in military colleges, and, elsewhere, the teachings of Socrates (died 399 BC) continue to resonate and are still studied. The past still speaks to the present, because humans are still the same. Technology changes, but homo sapiens do not. 

I hope Mish is wrong. But if he's correct, it's not like we should be surprised. And even if war does not break out, we are still seeing an older version of Europe reasserting itself.

The Oft-Charade Of Science

What is often passed as science is not truly science. Indeed, what is often times presented as science is simply a caricature, a charade, of science. Or an outright lie. According to Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet in an opinion piece that was simultaneously published in both the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine --- the two leading medical journals in the English-speaking world, if not in the entire world --- stated: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." (link)



Echoing these words, Dr. Marcia Angell --- editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine -- stated: "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine." (link)

In fact, this problem of the lack of reproducibility of published experiments and data in peer-reviewed science journals might be even worse than suggested by Drs. Horton and Angell. According to an article published in the online medical journal PLOS/Medicine the vast majority of published science is simple "false." (link)

How can this be? How has science become so compromised? Because science has become a commodity, to be packaged and sold to an audience. There is money to be made, and science is marketed to achieve that end. True or not, science sells. 

Science is powerful. It has gotten us to the moon and back, it has extended the lifespan of the average human being to historical highs, and has unlocked the secrets of the atom. It has also allowed us to pollute our planet at levels that seem improbable (link) and created the ability --- a present reality! --- to exterminate all life on the planet, i.e., nuclear weapons. But science is also consummately human. We have "bad" science, because we are, simply put, "bad." We should expect the above observations to be normal, not exceptions. Contrary to what we are often taught in school and of which forms a foundational paradigm for our collective humanistic approach to reality, human beings are not intrinsically good. Collectively and individually we are fallen. As it reads in the New Testament book of Romans: 

(more references)

As the British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge observed, "The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact." I could not have stated it better, and this helps us to explain all of the points written above.  Parenthood teaches us this. I never had to teach my children to hit, to be selfish, to not share, and to bully. I had to teach them to not use violence, to not be selfish, to share, and to be empathetic and kind. 

Where does this leave us? We're hopeless, except for Jesus. Thank God for Jesus!

 

The Dis-United States Of America

I am not a Barack Obama fan, at least in the sense of a political leader. I think that Mr. Obama was, like Trump, elected because of who he wasn't, not because of who he was. But he proved to simply be a status-quo political apparatchik and his two terms in office demonstrated no independent or original thinking, but simply maintaining the profitability of the vast military-industrial complex and the American for-profit medical care system, among other corporate stake holders.

Now he is no longer president and can, maybe, speak more freely about whatever he chooses. I find it fascinating that he has chosen to use Netflix as the venue to share his thoughts and ideas. I suppose that this will more effectively reach his target audience, which is probably anyone younger than me!

Here is a link about his new business venture. He warns that the United States cannot survive in its present form unless Americans figure out ways to overcome the growing political and social division in our country. And he's right.

Pew Research conducted a series of polls a few years back that demonstrate that Americans are increasingly divided. This division runs so deep that 1) many Americans increasingly believe that they cannot have friends who are of a different political party, and 2) Americans are actually physically separating themselves (as in moving across town, within a state, or even to another state) from others of different political orientation when possible. Crazy! 

Source

Thus the increasing polarization of political thought and identity into urban vs. rural and Red state vs Blue state; which is better understood as a Red county vs Blue county, as the map below demonstrates. 

2016 election 

As I have shared with my history students, I can not recall a similar phenomenon in American history this side of the decades preceding the American Civil War when sectionalism ruled American politics. Sectionalism is when one's political orientation is determined by ones local --- in this case, free state vs. slave state --- rather than party platform. Although, the bimetallism controversy of the late 19th century comes close.

Source

As a consequence of the Industrial Revolution and the increased urbanization it generated, today's neo-sectionalism is urban residents versus rural residents, part-and-parcel with the demographic shifts described by Pew Research (above). This becomes starkly apparent in the political voting patterns, such as the 2012 presidential election. 

Source

As a consequence of the ongoing demographic shift generated by industrialization, urban centers are exemplary Gesellschaft collectives and  rural areas wanna-be Gemeinschaft (learn more here). I say "wanna-be" because I believe that genuine Gemeinschaft society is extinct in the United States, except for small pockets such as the Amish. Still, people instinctively yearn for the former social construction. Nonetheless, I believe that the increasing atomization of American society, with the elevation of the individual as the apex of social evolution, will only increase. So, today's sectionalism is between the ultra-Gesellschaft urban centers versus the less-Gesellschaft rural areas. You can see this sectionalism not only in voting patterns but also in population concentrations. Did you know that over half of the American population lives in only 146 counties? 

Source

In summary, as a consequence of evolving Gesellschaft society, political polarization will increase. Mr. Obama is correct: unless Americans can find common ground, the federal republic will be both less federal and increasingly sectional. This is unlikely, as I think that Gesellschaft society, being inherently individualistic, cannot sustain a common identity, as the failure of the diversity movement is demonstrating. 

We live in interesting times. 

Ferdinand Tonnies And School Shootings

The United States reached a historical high this year, suffering its 23rd school shooting this year.

Source

Of course, many will blame these shootings on the easy availability of guns, which is true, but only in part. Guns are better than knives for mass murder. But the problem is not one of guns, nor the solution one of, say, arming teachers. The problem is that our families are woefully broken.

I am a retired public school teacher and I and my fellow teachers feared such an event at the school where we taught. Indeed, as our school was remote and a minimum of 20 minutes away from a response by law enforcement personnel, we requested that the school board research ways to allow us to be armed in some fashion. For example, having school personnel trained to use firearms and to keep a weapon under lock-and-key in the office. But the public outcry against this proposal was so great, that a collection of parents started a recall petition against the board chairman for simply proposing this discussion! These parents didn't realize that the chairman was tabling a request made by teachers concerned for their safety within the school district.

There were a handful of students in our school that fit the profile of what has become a "typical" school shooter. In fact, we had one student who actually (and openly) celebrated the anniversary of the Columbine shooting as a personal holiday. These students were unusual and socially awkward and had difficulty in forming meaningful friendships with others. I personally made an effort to connect with all of my students, but many of these specific kids were very odd. Very odd.

A common thread among these students? Dysfunctional families. Messed up family lives. And not specifically poverty (some were quite wealthy) or drug abuse situations. Just strange values and relationships. Dysfunctional parents seem to dysfunctional weird kids. And it was expected of us teachers to some how find a way to "reach" these students and positively influence their lives. Say what?

There is no solution, except either turning our schools into high-security bases or abolishing the 2nd Amendment. There will be no effort made to address the real root causes, as that is simply not permitted in today's society.

We don't lack the will power so much as we lack common values. And trying to use diversity as a shared value is like trying to allow anyone to spell words however he or she wants -- that is, removing the constraints of artificial rules of grammar --- because it is a "celebration" of who they are. Absurdity.

Our only hope is in a Third Great Awakening.

Our Collective Psychoses

I'm a lifelong student of history, which means that I believe that the study of history helps us (me) to understand the present. The world as it is today is an outcome of what has gone before. The past does matter, as it is a hint to the future.

One of my favorite social scientist is Ferdinand Tonnies.  He was a turn of the century (1855-1936) German sociologist and he was intensely aware of the world changing around him and that he took  note of it; even more, he brought coherency to it. His ground-breaking book was Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, which is translated into English as community and society.  Max Weber was sufficiently impressed by this work to prompt him to add it to his own research and sociological paradigm.

Tonnies observed that human society was fundamentally changing with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Tonnies pointed out that industrialization as a stimulus for social change was as significant as the Neolithic Revolution. Tonnies noted these changes and recorded his observations in the work noted above.

  

Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, human society has been in an extended transition phase. This process is not complete and while there is no timeline as to when it will be complete, its impacts are evident.  My goal in the next few posts is to examine society today through the lens of Gemeinschaft vs Gesellschaft.

Industrialization saw the transformation of society (at this point, mostly the Western world, but increasingly across the developing world) from one that is predominantly agrarian and rural to one that is urban. This change generated huge and lasting changes to all areas of human psycho-social development and the resultant social change, including paradigms of self-perception (personality development and sense of self) to how families and communities are structured.

Source

As you can see on the above chart, the evolution of human self-perception changed from the Gemeinshaft community to the Gesellschaft community. This is further elaborated below.

Source

Effectively, Gesellschaft sees a worldview developing that centers on the self, whereas Gemeinschaft centers on the group, such as the community or the family. This change in focus has real world ramifications. For example, in a Gesellschaft community, everyone knows everyone else. I suppose a modern example of this sort of community would be a traditional group such as the Amish. In a Gemeinschaft community, people do not know their neighbors. For example, in an apartment building, a person might know by name the person across the hall, but hardly anyone else. One can live in an apartment complex, a neighborhood, or other similar congregation of habitations, and be surrounded by what are effectively strangers. 

I will explore the ramifications of our society's change from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft society. It is important to understand that this change in society, for example in the United States, occurred over a very brief period of time. Think of Laura Ingalls Wilder, who was born into a Gemeinschaft society and died in a Gesellschaft one (one could also argue that her generation was the first iteration of a modern Gesellschaft society), 

  

How had American society changed since 1867 when Laura Ingalls Wilder was born? How has American society changed since her death in 1957? Wilder was born into a world where the primary means of transportation in the upper Plains was by wagon and/or railroad. And she died in a world of jet-powered airliners and nuclear bombs. This is change in technology. And although technology greatly influences the construction of human society, do not conflate the two. And the pace of social change continues.

What this means is that people have increasingly lost those familial and community connections which are ideal and necessary for healthy human psychological and sociological development. We can only imagine the depth and breadth of interconnectivity that a Gemeinschaft community offered its members and which is impossible to establish in a Gesellschaft one. In a small Gemeinschaft community everyone knew each and protected the other, whereas as in our modern Gesellschaft cities, for example, a person can be surrounded by a million others, but still be isolated and alone.

I wonder if human beings are psychologically designed to function best in a Gemeinschaft society, rather than any alternative. Not that Gemeinschaft societies were perfect, e.g. imagine living in a community where gossip is an effective social control. But people were never without the support of family --- not just "others," but family. I believe that humans are meant to live in Gemeinschaft communities and outside of this humans cannot develop normally; that is, in a psychologically healthy way.

Interestingly, as industrialization brought about the decline of Gemeinschaft communities in the United States, settlers in the West or the first generation of industrial workers in the cities founded substitute communities, as subconscious attempts at reestablishing those human connections recently lost. Thus we see in the 19th century the burgeoning growth in self-selecting social groups, such as fraternal societies, labor unions, and other groups that brought its members into new interpersonal relationships recently lost. But these cannot substitute for the structure of Gemeinschaft society. They only reflect the subconscious need to connect with others.

Subsequently, with the advent of Gesellschaft society and the destruction of Gemeinschaft communities, the collective psychoses of American society becomes apparent. And increasingly. With the loss of the Gemeinschaft family at its base, and further strengthened through Gemeinschaft community, modern society is hopelessly condemned to  unraveling. As proof, pick your psychosis! Examine any psycho-social issue, from sexual abuse to drug use, and the steady increase from one generation to the next becomes apparent. Our modern human society is unwinding because we have, individually and collectively, created a toxic and unnatural alternative. The human species cannot survive its Gesellschaft reality.

This might sound simplistic, but it hardly is. Humans have existed in Gemeinschaft communities since time immemorial and, in the West at least, have only experienced Gesellschaft society with the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

To be continued...

US Military Spending

Look at the graph below. What does it show?

Source: Link

The United States clearly leads the rest of the world in military spending. The US spends as much as the next eleven nations combined. Why? I can think of no other logical reason than that it is extremely profitable. I understand the arguments to the contrary, that the US must face down the growing threat of Russia and China, that the US is the world's first sole superpower and must protect that position, and that there exists existential threats out in the world that must be confronted. All of these are invalid. The US generates enemies through its wanton warmongering. And by creating enemies, the justification for increased military (or, at least, continuing) spending is rationalized.

President Eisenhower was right. As he warned Americans during his 1961 farewell address to the nation, the biggest threat to the Republic lay within its own borders: a collusion between Congress, corporate leaders of the arms industries, and American military leaders. He called this collusion the military-industrial complex. He had originally was going to use the term "congressional-military-industrial complex," but felt that it was too unwieldy and thus shortened it. But, it is important to understand that Congress is part-and-parcel of this cabal.

He wrote:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Am I yielding to a conspiracy theory? Hardly. Eisenhower was not a fool and his experiences with the CIA, e.g. the 1954 coup in Guatemala, sobered him to the realities of who held power in Washington D.C.

We are living Eisenhower's nightmare.