In my last column, I quoted espionage expert Phillip Knightly. "An
intelligence service thrives on threat," he wrote in "The Second
Oldest Profession." The same could be said about the rest of the defense
And there are "threats" all over, the "liberal" media
warn us: South Korea is developing missiles that can travel farther than before;
the Friday rocket attack on American diplomatic and U.N. buildings in Islamabad,
Pakistan, which is tacitly assumed to be a "terrorist" strike on
behalf of (if not masterminded by) Osam bin Laden.
What does it all come down to? There’s a lot of truth in the cliché: money
makes the world go round.
Meanwhile, defense industry folks must be real happy about all of this.
That’s right. The errand boys of the business class, who run the Pentagon system
and dole out welfare payments to huge technology-making corporations, are happy
as long as Congress is slashing social spending in the name of fiscal
responsibility, while beefing up "defense" spending.
It’s called "market discipline" for workers and the poor (in order
to wean the rabble off big government "dependence"); while nurturing
the parasitic relationship that big business has with Uncle Sam and our tax
Whenever someone tells me that socialism has failed, I laugh. If socialism
has failed, then what do you call the Department of Defense? Economist Seymour
Melman, author of "Pentagon Capitalism", calls the Pentagon system
"a state within a state…a para-state." The chief of all military
industrialists – the Secretary of Defense, a non-elected official – controls an
economy larger than that of most nations on the planet!
This publicly subsidized, private profit-producing technology (via the
Pentagon system) we "need," no doubt. Why? Because the world is full
of terrorists, left-over commies, cranks and quacks who get in the way of our
"national interest", i.e. Middle East oil market and consumer-friendly
"free-markets" in every other nook and cranny of the globe.
Conservative hawks tend to be a little more forthcoming about these things
than are liberal doves, as a cursory reading of "academic" foreign
policy articles will reveal. The hawks usually don’t dress up their language
with Orwellian niceties like "human rights" and "democracy"
- terms employed by propagandists meant to make this harsh reality a little more
palpable to the ignorant masses. Honest talk about low-intensity conflict,
special operations and economic politics would turn the stomach of even lukewarm
Then there’s the "liberal" media which does everything but educate
the public on the use and abuse of the forces that powerfully shape everyday
life. Just about anything will do, right? Ridiculous debates between
creationists and evolutionists; the supposed rift between O.J. supporters
(blacks) and O.J. haters (whites); grave discussions about whether the
peccadilloes of a promiscuous president rise to the level of "high crimes
And pundits cynically chastise the "uninformed" for their alleged
ignorance and apathy. Then we are told, through no fault of the so-called Fourth
Estate, this pandemic citizen inertia is probably the sole reason for low voter
turnout. The more thoughtful pundits will note in somber tones that this is not
what the "founding fathers" had in mind. Hence, the "crisis"
No exposes on the Council of Foreign Relations? Just how is it that
politicians allegedly as ideologically opposed as former President Bush and
President Clinton can both be members of the CFR? What is the doctrinal glue
that binds a "conservative" and a "liberal" under one
No in-depth analysis on the World Bank? What is this institution? What are
its policies? With a little digging you can find a World Bank report that says
almost half of all "international trade" is really intrafirm
transfers, which, by definition is not trade.
When Ford, for example, manufactures car components in Mexico and then ships
them for assembly in America or vice versa, that’s not trade; even though it’s
carried out under the guise of "free-trade" agreements like NAFTA. Do
you think the "adversarial" press will question World Trade
Organization leaders about this when they meet in Seattle in two weeks?
And finally, the "liberal" media offer up worthy "bad
guys" that even make Rush Limbaugh fans feel good, venting their righteous
radio rage. The schizophrenic "feds," say talk radio heads, defend and
protect the "national interest" with vigor but throw discipline to the
wind when it comes to taking care of the poor and the disinherited?
Must be that old pesky American goodwill getting in the way of reason, again.
So even when we do bad, we’re good! Fascinating. The feds are squishy when it
comes to domestic policy but hard-nosed and brave when it comes to the
"national interest"? Amazing creatures – these feds.
You can learn a lot about human nature, deceit, and denial by reading the