War as the Business of Nation
It is hard to think of things that are as devastating, brutalizing, and horrifying as war. My own grandparents still remember the horrors of the Great War vividly. A war that devasted Europe and killed tens of millions of people. No matter the cause or justification, war always means death, destruction, chaos, and loss for the individual citizen. The dehumanizing nature of wars which turn individuals into mere casualty statistics, is one of the great tragedies of mankind. But what causes wars? While they might seem to originate from often apparently opposing ideologies, the underlying premises of war are always the same.
War is the business of nations. The relationship between one state and another is not determined by a higher sovereign. Just as private individuals interact voluntarily, so do the individuals leading the respective nations, regardless of how they claim that leadership. Just as private individuals have a philosophy they accept (be it implicitly and by default or explicitly), so do the leaders of said nations.
War used to be an opportunity for nations to settle conflicts of interests with other countries at the ultimate cost of thousands of individual lives and interests. Since the invention of war for total domination or total war in the 20th Century and the correlating invention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, this conflict “resolution” option went from suboptimal foreign policy to absolute insanity. For the reasonable person, nuclear annihilation is something to generally avoid as a conclusion to a dispute. So why is war still prevalent today? As the world slides further and further down the road of total war, just as it once did in 19141 and in 1939, knowing the answer to this question becomes more and more critical. One can only hope that we are living through another Cuban missile crisis and not the crisis promulgated by the assassination of an Archduke.
The Ministry of Truth State Department
To understand the philosophy behind present-day warmongering, we must get an objective view of what is actually going on in the world. In any war, the aggressor is always morally culpable.2 Since this is so obvious, every 20th-Century regime painted its aggression as self-defense against an outside force. Some with more claim to it than others. While the encirclement of the Triple Entente and the Treaty of Versailles may be seen as more valid claims to self-defense, other events like the prospect of Poland invading Germany are less likely to reach that standard. From a historical standpoint, Russia's invasion of Ukraine falls somewhere in the middle of the two.
Insanity and Texas
From a New Zealand perspective, events in Ukraine are somewhat harder to explain. Why NZ chooses to send military troops to a country that 95% of Kiwis could not point out on a map is beyond me. From an American perspective, however, it is crystal clear. To understand why Russia invaded Ukraine, Americans just have to think of the following scenario. Texas cedes from the Union with the support of China. Not only that, but China also supports Mexico and Canada, and it was also relocated to Panama. The US Government would be highly alarmed as it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis and undoubtedly would seek military action.
Ukraine is only slightly less Russian than Texas is American and more Russian than Alsace is French. Swap some names from the example above, and you have yourself the current war in Ukraine. Without going into too much historical detail, Ukraine was part of either Russia, Poland, or both for most of recent history. The idea of an independent Ukraine is the apparent result of late 19th to 20th Century nation-building. Most Ukrainians speak Russian at least as a second language, with 30% of the country speaking it as their first language. The President of Ukraine himself is not fluent in Ukrainian. Just as I am for the cession of Texas from the Union, I am also for an independent Ukraine; nonetheless, this historical context should be noted. While the reasons for Russia's involvement are pretty straightforward, the US involvement is murky at best. Arguably, the latter's involvement is far more essential to understand.
Foreign policy goals are either militaristic or economic. By this standard, there are no American foreign policy goals in Europe. It is not a military threat to the US, and it has a trade surplus with the US. By definition, cutting off trade with Europe would grow the US economy. If America has a dog in this fight, then every dog is American. Since Ukraine is a client state of the State Department, this is, of course, the exact position the Cathedral is taking.
Armed with newly acquired gain-of-function mass propaganda, the US government and the Cathedral are now more interested in Europe. Someone has to rescue this bureaucratic construct from the 1990s after all. The message is clear and straightforward: Destroy this Mad Brute. If you want to see classic WW1 propaganda in action, listen to this clip by VP Kamala Harris.
So, Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So, basically, that's wrong, and it goes against everything that we stand for. - Kamala Harris
In other words, Brawndo has electrolytes.
If you spend any time thinking about the issue, you realize that US foreign policy is made to benefit neither the Americans, the Russians, or the Ukrainians. Instead, it is made to first benefit the Cathedral, second for the entertainment of the US media audience, third for the benefit of foreigners, and lastly for the benefit of US citizens. Anything that benefits the establishment and delights the viewers will happen. After all, very mainstream figures have warned that US policy in Ukraine was causing a war. This includes figures such as George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, John Mearsheimer, Jack Matlock, William Perry, Noam Chomsky, Pat Buchanan, Stephen Cohen, Jeffrey Sachs, William Burns, and Robert Gates. See for yourself.
How can we explain this conflict of interests, and what is its driving motivator? The Cathedral is motivated by one thing, further accumulation of power. Hypocrisy is an idea that lends itself perfectly to this purpose, as long as it does not become too apparent. Once you realize that the Cathedral's foreign policy is inherently hypocritical, the power dynamics and benefits become a lot clearer. Officially, the policy adopted is one of pure Altruism. That is helping Ukraine as a matter of selfless duty. The service to others is seen as the highest virtue, with self-sacrifice being the ultimate goal. Thus the US citizens must sacrifice everything for Ukrainian independence. As a result, the utter destruction of Ukraine, moral self-righteousness of the supporters of the current thing, and an ever-growing culture of statism.
Statism
Even while nuclear weapons had made wars too horrible to contemplate, every nation on earth felt that such a war might come. So-called peace movements that regularly express horror at individuals in their own country arming themself are chanting fiercely for the Ukrainian citizen to arm themself. They oppose the use of coercion by Russia against Ukraine but support the oppression of their own government against their fellow citizens.
The degree of statism in a country's political system is equivalent to how it breaks up the country into rival pressure groups. Divide and conquer is not only applicable to outside forces but has been employed by statist regimes frequently. Notice the ongoing encouragement of division across every class, gender, race, political affiliation, etc. As the individual is seen only as part of a group, and individual rights are abolished, the only thing left is power and the destruction of the other.
A society that is free to produce has no incentive to loot. It has nothing to gain from war and a great deal to lose. A statist society requires war to maintain itself.
A country's productivity is directly correlated to the amount of economic freedom it has. Countries without or with limited economic freedom produce little and rely on gaining resources from external sources. War is one method; trade is the other. The US, in particular, profits from both at the same time.
The US military complex has an enormous influence on US foreign affairs. This is easily observed when one looks at the US's recent military activities. From shipping arms to Ukraine to the everlasting war in the Middle East, the principal economic benefactor was the country's arms producers.
However, war brings with it other benefits that trade does not enable. It is a way to create and maintain power. Statist regimes rely on the widespread support of their citizens. As the 20th Century has shown, one of the most effective methods of manufacturing support is by creating an "other." This other group can then be blamed for all the misgivings of the current government, so the latter's failures become the "successful" disruption by the former.
Nothing creates an "other" than war. The inherent emotions of hatred and the dehumanization created in war are perfect to create scapegoats and rally support for the current thing. The press alerts the public, gathers popular support for the cause, and highlights the current regime as the only solution. And so inflation changed from being caused by the printing of money by the Federal Reserve in response to the current regime's fiscal policy to: Russia did it. Or alternatively, a lost election to the Outer Part due to the evident corruption of the Inner Party (i.e., Hillary Clinton) becomes: Russia did it.
A worrying trend that highlights the decline in education in the West is the level of regression in propaganda strategies. Propaganda advances in lockstep with the education levels of the general public. It has to do this to be believed and work in creating support for the current thing. If you look at propaganda during WW1, the level of comprehension required by the propaganda is roughly on the level of a pre-teen. On the other hand, the propaganda for the Iraq war was more advanced. What is worrying is that recent propaganda employed by the US is back to WW1 levels, i.e., Russian guy bad.
The propaganda employed by the regime also highlights the inherent hypocritical nature of their Altruism. True altruism3 is unpracticable, but it is an idea that appeals to the voters’ emotions. It creates support by appealing to and generating a duty to care for others. It is a tool to create power. The Cathedral employs this emphasis on duty to ensure that America’s “good” citizens care for more than their selfish needs and thus support whatever the current objective is. Sacrifice your freedom, rights, and life to protect the old and vulnerable. Sacrifice your future for a “free” Ukraine. One only needs to know a little history to see where this will lead to next.
Observations
Some of you may be affected by this complex and its various types of machinery. In the end, the complex cannot operate without its customers, without an audience. If regimes require the widespread support of their citizens to exist, then your support is part of any war the administration propagates. If you knew this, I am sure you would not support it. If the American establishment and its audience had started this War out of conscious action to sacrifice the living for more power, we would at least know what we were doing and why. The knowledge of it makes you able to renounce it.
Instead, unknowingly you support the destruction by helping those that cause it. Your social media “influencing” directed by the political entertainment complex, makes you feel good. Putting the Ukrainian colors in your Twitter handle (or your vaccination status) to “support” the noble rebels of “Kyiv” give you a rush of power. You feel that you have made an impact. You have changed the world for the better.
Theories of classical political “science” all propagate that power is held by the state. The state is defined by its monopoly of power. Politics is the contest to control the state; justice is the legal force of the state. This is then extrapolated in Marxist theories that politics cannot be constrained to the state. Power extends across the population, i.e., everyone has power, and everyone can act politically. Thus “social justice,” which is to legal justice as social media is to broadcast media.
Encouraged by the Cathedral, i.e., the press and the universities, are the correlating altruist duties that come with “power.” It is everyone’s duty to act with force, to use power directly and personally rather than delegating it through indirect political mechanisms. Everyone is their own judge, jury, and executioner. Everyone is on the jury that convicts Putin and standing at the scaffold as he takes the drop. Lynching is social justice. In fact, you are doing your best to lynch Putin right now. No one is forcing you to do this. Realizing this fact, you can just stop.
This distribution of power in the short run creates further popular support for its representatives. In the long run, however, this increasing call for action, pure action no matter what for or for what cause, will ultimately decimate the current political structure.
Ask yourself why the establishment finds it necessary to pour money and effort into continuing waves of propaganda for their increasingly helpless citizens. To find the answer, understand that it is not about the “other.” It is about you. It is not about Russia or even Ukraine. You know no more than a few basic facts about these far-away people. Why must you consider it your moral responsibility to support them? Your actions will inadvertently lead them into a war they cannot win, a path that one way or another will lead to their servitude that differs only in the name of their masters.
If you have family and friends in a region struck by War, it is understandable to worry about them. Ensure they are safe, have food and shelter, and get them out of there if you can. There is nothing wrong with donating food, money, and medicine to citizens in those areas. On the other hand, Virtue signaling does no good and only evil. It gives you the illusion of accomplishment and moral achievement while further supporting the statist regimes that perpetrate these wars. Consider changing the way you look at this and any other current thing that your government is propagating. It will make a difference.
Not virtue signaling about Ukraine does not mean you support Putin. This is not a binary issue. The rational response to seeing the current “antiwar rallies” whose platform is shipping more guns, bombs, and tanks to one side of a war or hearing a phrase like “no justice, no peace” is not to join in but to laugh and move on.
There was once a time when one was more concerned with the happenings in one’s own country than the action of those far away. I leave you with the words of John Quincy Adams:
“… what has America done for the benefit of mankind? Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government.
America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.
But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.”
Book recommendation: The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman
To be clear, wars that are fought for any reason other than to repel an invading force (i.e. self-defense) are morally wrong. Historically, this is easier said than objectively shown.
“The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.” - Ayn Rand