Get
used to it!
by system
failure
Some
thoughts on an article of NY Times under the title “The Lack
of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth”:
“The
world just hasn’t had that much warfare lately, at least not by
historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or
South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but
today’s casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people
killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century.
Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war
involving an affluent country.” [!!!]
Which means
that we must go backwards instead of evolving as humanity, creating
mass bloodbaths for the benefit of the few?
“This
view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of
course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is
also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war
lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very
possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting
some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply
liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s
longer-run prospects.”
Which
means that we should play with fire just to make capitalism keep
running?
“It
may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but
a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so
easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer
and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American
government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold
War.”
Possible
translation: It may seem repugnant but get used to it!
“War
brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For
instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working
atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak
consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to
imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.”
Which means
that the US must build a more effective weapon to destroy the planet
faster in order to boost the economy?
“Ian
Morris, a professor of classics and history at Stanford, has revived
the hypothesis that war is a significant factor behind economic
growth in his
recent book, “War! What Is it Good For? Conflict and the
Progress of Civilization From Primates to Robots.” Morris considers
a wide variety of cases, including the Roman Empire, the European
state during its Renaissance rise and the contemporary United States.
In each case there is good evidence that the desire to prepare for
war spurred technological invention and also brought a higher degree
of internal social order.”
Internal
social order? (!!!)
Naturally,
the article ends with a preferable stance to peace, but the indirect
warning "The real questions are whether we can do any better,
and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble
just waiting to be burst." sets the real goal:
“Living
in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big
advantages that you don’t get with 4 percent growth and many more
war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but it’s
something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real
questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent
prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be
burst.”
Furthermore,
the economic totalitarian throught is more than obvious here, as it
puts in the same equation the increase of GDP by 2 pc and the death
of maybe millions! As expected, the death of millions is not of
course out of question, but only less preferable against these "big
advantages".
As Paul
Craig Roberts writes in recent articles:
“...
Washington thinks nuclear war can be won and is planning for a first
strike on Russia, and perhaps China, in order to prevent any
challenge to Washington’s world hegemony.”
“...
US strategic doctrine was changed and the role of nuclear missiles
was elevated from a retaliatory role to an offensive first strike
role. US anti-ballistic missile (ABM) bases have been established in
Poland on Russia’s frontier, and other bases are planned. When
completed Russia will be ringed with US missile bases.”
“Washington
has been convinced by neoconservatives that Russian strategic nuclear
forces are in run down and unprepared condition and are sitting ducks
for attack. This false belief is based on out-of-date information
..."
Some, like
Roberts, are trying to warn us, that the Washington neocon "hawks"
truly believe that they can win a nuclear war. Maybe they've already
started the preparations using the mainstream media: From
anti-Russian propaganda to natural acceptance of a nuclear war -
brainwash. A sick neoliberal "rationalism" overdose - which
in reality and out of our Matrix-world is pure madness - may be
proved very useful, especially for the latest.
Comments
Post a Comment