by Tom Baugh
Now consider that a thermonuclear war, at the worst case envisioned by experts of the time, would completely destroy A Country in the form of damaged buildings and leveled factories. But, the only real effect on B Country would be the short-term poisoning of the land by short-lived fission products. And even these effects could be mitigated by simple prophylactic measures which blocked their effects on people. The implication of all of these assertions, backed by scientific fact, was clear.
A 1960 thermonuclear war, even as a worst-case surprise attack on the United States by a fully effective Soviet Union of that day, could be survived. If the people of A Country had been evacuated first to B Country, all of their intellectual ability would also survive intact, making recovery much more simple. And the decade-doubling of the economy would restore the nation to its pre-war status within ten years.
In the meantime, the half-destroyed United States of 1960 would still have been the most powerful economy on the planet. And with most of its population intact.
Today, some modern economists claim that tornados are beneficial in that they stimulate jobs in the recovery. I disagree, as undoing the damage done merely represents the rollback of some previous -ΔQ. But, if those same modern economists are to be believed, then their ideas would also argue that the recovery from a thermonuclear war would also be equally beneficial. Think of all the jobs which would be created if all those A Country cities and neighborhoods were rebuilt from scratch. After all, the ore and the aggregate and the limestone still lies there intact, untouched by the evil neutron. And by the time this rebuilding has been completed, the effects of the short-term fission products will have faded into meaninglessness.
But this line of reasoning requires boldness, and reliance upon the individual, and the relinquishing of fear. The monkey collective must not allow this sort of thought. And so, the response of the collective throughout those early decades of the Cold War was to deride the thinkers, military and civilians, as war-mongers and naive. The best representation of this derision was in a cleverly spun film by Stanley Kubrick:
Video Assignment
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb This movie, which was required viewing at the Naval Academy, accurately reflects the ethic of the monkey collective. Kahn was parodied as half of Dr. Strangelove, who makes reference in the film to the "BLAND Corporation". The other half of his character is presumed to be a melange of former Nazi scientists. The LeMay-ish character in the film was portrayed by George C. Scott, who ironically also played Patton in that self-titled film. Why my literature professor insisted that we watch it still escapes me. I wonder if it was her intent to sabotage the future Rickovers and Al Grays under her charge? Curiously, Kahn's book itself was not part of the curriculum.
In that film, and in life, fear and prejudice and weakness are lauded by the collective as virtuous. Individual effort and achievement are derided as naive and hopeless. Patriotism to the ideal of liberty is presented as outdated and foolish, while only compliance to the collective and weakness is considered strength. Films such as this don't propagandize the collective any more than politicians deceive the collective as they rob us blind.
Instead, politician and film-maker and reporter alike merely respond to their respective markets. The collective demands that the politicians steal from the individual on its behalf. And so they do. Similarly, the collective demands that the film-maker and the reporter deride the individual, and make him more susceptible to the theft. And so they do. In all the many ways in our world by which the collective steals from us and derides our most hallowed institutions, they do so at the command of the monkey electorate and market.
But a nuclear-tipped Cold War wasn't enough to promote fear and compliance. After all, the Soviets might collapse some day, they reasoned. Or the LeMays or Pattons or Al Grays or Rickovers who hadn't yet been ferreted out might just be too good at their work. Accordingly, Biff and Muffy, the suited representatives of the collective, needed a replacement or two waiting in the wings.
So, after it appeared that the Cold War was firing up to full heat, the monkey collective decided on the dick move of their time. To create another festering sore of resentment, in 1948, the worldwide monkey collective relocated a band of those hapless Jew survivors into Palestine. And created both the state of Israel and a myth of a destruction of the state of Palestine, a nation which never actually existed but fills the role of a victim nicely. In this example, the collective managed to instantly create victims on both sides. If you oppose Israel, you must be a holocaust denier. Conversely, if you favor Israel, you must hate Allah and property rights. No one wins but the collective which feeds on the conflict. And which requires your sacrifice to feed it.
From the point of view of the Palestinian, you can see why they would be upset. Imagine if a whole bunch of homeless people were transplanted into my old drywall neighborhood in Forsyth County. In so doing, perhaps I and all my neighbors and our families were deported out to, say, Utah. As a reaction to this injustice, we would imagine a sort of national unity which didn't exist at all before the deportation. Maybe we would demand a Forsythian state and refuse to admit the legitimacy of the homeless community. We might even form the Forsythian Liberation Organization. I would also be highly motivated to go back to my old neighborhood and have it out with the homeless. They, in turn, would then be motivated to form some security organizations like the Hossad. Biff and Muffy, who started this mess because they thought it would be nice to help the homeless, would be equally happy to sell both sides weapons. Or collect our votes.
On the other hand, a group of our oil-rich relatives, perhaps in Texas, might decide to cash in, too. Now, assume that our relatives in Texas practice a religion with a central tenet of hospitality to the displaced. Following their own principles, our relatives might be inclined to promote a Forsythian state in the middle of the Texas desert. And then fund our business startups, at zero interest, also in keeping with their religious tenets.
But, our Texas relatives might find their individual purpose served better to keep us riled up. And recruit us to go blow up their political enemies in the name of Forsyth, even if these enemies had absolutely nothing to do with the original conflict in question.
The victims on both sides of this conflict are being sold a bill of goods. It was easy enough to con a bunch of holocaust survivors into hopping a boat to the promised land. After starving in a death camp for a few years while my former neighbors turned a blind eye, I would understandably be a little wary of moving back in next door to them. I would also probably turn a blind eye to their understandable fear of defying the then-prevalent authority. If some slick marketing came my way about moving to the Biblically-assured Promised Land I might be inclined to go along.
From an outsider's perspective I would be a little surprised that the boat was heading southeast instead of west, though, given that America is the Promised Land for all peoples. This is supposed to be the place where producers of all stripes come to make their way in the world. Had the forces of nice wanted to really give all those Jews a home, the answer to that question was almost obvious. Buy a goodly-sized farm in Kansas, and hand those craftsmen and merchants hammers and paper. And create New Jerusalem right here in the middle of the continent. Of course you would also have had to slap some sense into their Marxist elitists, but I don't see that as a downside.
This reasonable approach would have left the Palestinians to run the hotels to host the New Jerusalemites on their lucrative pilgrimages to the Old Jerusalem historical sites. After all, Jews, Christians and Moslems lived in relative harmony in that area for centuries prior to 1948. So, in that climate, why wouldn't the Palestinians welcome their long-ago brothers with open arms today? But then there wouldn't be all that discontent, now would there? Instead, we have to ask some Kansas farmer kid to go fight a string of wars for reasons for which he is woefully unprepared to even comprehend.
While the earlier post-armistice duplicit
y stirred up dissent on only one side, this improved model creates dissatisfaction on both sides. This new model was so effective at manufacturing deep political compliance of the victims and their allies that it was worth repeating, but with one slight tweak. The problem here is that the forces of nice are too easy to identify as the source of the conflict itself. After all, those homeless people didn't just swim the Chattahoochie and truck us away by themselves. They had some help, and the help doesn't like getting blamed.
Enter the peace-keeping mission. The beauty of the peace-keeping mission as a political compliance tool is that the guilty parties can remain comfortably out of sight. Conflict is a universal constant of human existence, usually between one party which has something and another who wants it without having earned it. With this natural force at play, this mission also doesn't require any startup costs. Once conflict sprouts, tender care and rhetorical watering can ensure that it will blossom into a full scale crisis. At that point, the forces of niceness can spring into action to oppose whatever side seems to be winning at the moment. This approach is guaranteed to win the hearts of female voters of either gender, as it provokes their boo-boo kissing nature.
Unfortunately, the fact that this approach is unreliable in identifying the oppressing party is of no consequence for the purposes of eliciting political compliance. After all, the emerging victor may actually be applying the pipe to the knee of some jerk who deserved the treatment. The only consideration is a victim to aid, ethics or judgement having no impact.
My first professional introduction to the peace-keeping mission was shortly after entering the Naval Academy. During a naval leadership course numerous peace-keeping scenarios were presented to the new midshipmen and discussed. One such case is that of Marine Captain Chuck Johnson, remembered for holding three Israeli tanks at bay with his .45 pistol in January of 1983. For most Marines, the incident itself was a dramatic change in warfighting. Prior to that era, Marines had one mission, attack the enemy. The modern idea of the American soldier or Marine as a international policeman was in its infancy.
I listened to the description of Captain Johnson's heroism, and then asked myself two key questions. First, "if the Israelis are our allies, as was the popular view, why in the hell are we pointing guns at them?" Second, "could it really be true that three Israeli tanks, crewed with soldiers who most likely had more live-fire battlefield experience than Captain Johnson, would be intimidated by this display?"
I later came to understand the answer to the first question as no apparent winner is our ally; we only back the losers. The Israelis were probably on the way to rout some unsavory elements. But, because our political goals were to be the forces of niceness and thwart victory, as the apparent victor they had to be stopped at all costs. Never mind that it was probably those same unsavory elements who later contributed to bombing the Marine barracks in Beirut in October of that same year.
The second answer is best understood in the context of the first. The three Israeli tank crews, having endured decades of the fishbowl atmosphere of warfighting on camera in the Middle East, were far more politically savvy to world opinion. They could have just simply run over Captain Johnson and proceeded on their way. This would have been a swift resolution of the conflict at hand. But, this practical approach would have had a dramatic effect on world opinion, and particularly those forces within the US who would take a dim view of the Israelis killing an American Marine. Having had their bread buttered for years by the forces of niceness, the killing of Captain Johnson would have had a more negative impact than the positive impact of their current mission.
As for Captain Johnson, he has to be credited with a certain amount of his own political savvy. He probably understood that the Israelis represented no real threat to him personally, either from their political inclinations or simply seeing Americans as allies. As heroic as his personal decisions may have been, the tank crews were probably no more menacing than a caged lion. So, he could draw his weapon with no intent of actually using it. Earlier Marine warfighting ethic would involve no such posturing. In decades past, no such warning would have been given, the Marine captain and his team at the checkpoint would have simply opened fire and then gone on about their day. But, the corrosive effect of rules of engagement were already taking hold. A decade later these rules would see the crew of the USS Cole watch a little boat drift along side. Friendly waves of niceness all around, this little boat would blow a big gaping hole in the side of one of the most advanced warships in the fleet.
And so wars have become half-measures. We no longer let conflicts resolve themselves by one side or the other winning, many times even by the right side. Instead, we let things brew just long enough to generate hatred and discontent. Then, we bottle up that hatred to sip on its energy in the form of wartime mentality toward greater procurement, and diminished liberty.
We don't even allow ourselves to win, as evidenced by the accidentally rapid progress toward victory in Desert Storm. This victory happened to put a big kink in the re-election plans of Bush 41 as a wartime president. His son would later not allow that same mistake. Instead, Bush 43 hedged his bets by waiting until the year before the election to attack, an attack totally justified in its purpose but perverted in time and intent.
In one view of international relations, we would take no action against anyone unless attacked, either militarily or economically. If we get attacked, and this attack can be traced in any way to support by another nation, we behead it as an object lesson to others. This means holding dictatorial jackasses personally accountable. Eventually, they will run out of body doubles or security details, and then we can explain the rules of the game to their successors. The first freaking American flag we see burnt or anti-American rally is an indication that he has lost control and is of no further value to us. You want to be in sole charge? Fine, but that means you have sole responsibility.
Or, you can take a free market approach and be our friend. And all of your people can be our friends, too. But this policy would require judgment. Judgment of right and wrong. Of good and evil. And not the vacation bible school kind of good and evil. No, the real kind in which individual value is considered a worthy thing all by itself, and not just by how much the individual joins a collective. Or is in charge of one.
For those countries which are already presumably free, they historically haven't been a problem. Countries run by people going about their day don't usually stir things up. Countries run by Biff and Muffy, on the other hand, are everyone's problem. After we fix our own Biff and Muffy problem, we can deal with the rest of them by cutting off the economic goodies and taking away electricity. People too busy growing food or digging wells don't have time for international intrigue, terrorism or making nuclear weapons.
We go to war to presumably free people in another country, and totally ignore or discredit the genuine reasons to go to war. As long as we ignore the plight of the average Cuban or North Korean, I have a hard time caring about whether an Iraqi has a school. Or whether that school is sufficiently well-funded at American taxpayer expense.
For that matter, I am sure that all those Chinese hammering away at those drums in the opening ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics probably have suck for a life. But, I am equally sure that those images warmed the hearts of Biff and Muffy on both sides. For Biff and Muffy Marxist, imagine all they could do if the little people would just behave like that. For Biff and Muffy Country Club, imagine all they could do if the little people would just behave like that. These two groups, supposedly at opposite ends of the political spectrum, are no different in their desire to oppress and seize control of that which they haven't earned. Their techniques are merely different. Their methods wrap around until they almost touch.
Biff and Muffy Marxist wish to enrage the dispossessed against the productive portion of society, and in so doing derive their political power from which to regulate your behavior by fiat. Biff and Muffy Country Club use their political power to attack your libert
y by defining many ways in which your behavior is un-American, and thus limit your liberty. Both are destructive to your ability to enjoy your day or to run your business as you see fit. And the same thought processes which are used destructively overseas are used here with more personal ill effect on you. We just call it our way of life when you have to pretend that you have freedom.
Study the ways of the monkey with regard to international relations. We bend over backwards to assist others in foreign countries, while we drain our lifeblood to do so. We dig wells and build schools for people who hate us, while we tax and regulate tax our own businesses, particularly the small. Meanwhile, the large businesses, which can amortize the cost of sending work overseas, enjoy numerous benefits unavailable to you. When you, the unemployed and previously employed, begin to incorporate or form non-profits to wear that suit-monkey costume, you will see how stacked the deck really is against you. At least as your own companies you will be able to slip a few cards from the deck.
Take for example the recent green buzz. All around us we hear rumors of job-creation by the new green initiatives. Yet, almost all of these dollars are already allocated to friends of lobbyists and Congressmen. You may want to get in on the installation of solar panels or windmill plants (bought from GE, made in China, and running software written in India), but you will probably find that those doors are already closed. Job creation overseas is more important than production, and the resulting quality of life, here. Worse than Hitler's Germany, tax treaties with other countries now prevent you from even escaping. Emigrate, and you will find that you will still owe the suit monkeys here taxes for at least ten years. They own you. For now.
By the way, in 1960 Herman Kahn was right about A Country. At that time, they did contribute to B Country in terms of designs and finished goods. But now, these things come from India and China, respectively. So what does A Country contribute now, other than regulations, and lawsuits, and brokering of increasingly defective finished goods? And open, gaping mouths to feed?
