Sunday, June 17, 2007


At 01:04 AM 6/1/2007, Mark Jensen wrote at
"COMMENTARY: Christian right hate group foments anti-Muslim intolerance"

Many of the big lies of 2003 have been exposed, and discredited.

However, the most fundamental assumption, beneath the entire US war campaign in the middle east, is that there is a terrorist threat in the first place.

Once you drink the kool aid, that there is a substantial terrorist threat to the U.S., you're only left with arguments over tactics, whether a big military occupation in Afghanistan is the wrong way to stop terrorism. We've tried this argument for five years now.

So, I want you all to stand up, and go to the nearest window, and open that window and yell


And if anybody wants to discuss it, start with math literacy. The 911 attacks killed 3000 people and demolished three buildings. That is not a significant cost or threat to the united states, even if it happened quite frequently. We have 300 million people. More than 3 million people die anyway in the U.S. every year. The 911 attack increased our mortality rate by 1/1000th.

And we can easily get another 3000 any time, by granting some visas or having sex. And we have already killed 3500 of our own troops, and over a million people in Iraq. Where is the math?

Meanwhile, all we had to do was lock the cockpit doors, and keep insane people and criminals out of the cockpits. Get it?

Now, go back to that window and yell,


And that is, a nuclear strike. Nuclear weapons are intrinsically a state enterprise. They require a huge, highly visible industrial effort.

When the boy emperor and his lunatic Generals in the Pentagon attack a lot of other nations, sooner or later, one of those nations or their allies, will detonate a nuclear weapon in a U.S. city.

That is called a military attack, not a terrorist attack. Because it will come from a state, a government, a military.


Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Distinguishing between individual and mass communication strategies

Regardless of your core beliefs about war, I think there are questions of strategy we need to discuss.

The peace movement and the antiwar movement are distinct. One is intent on moral and social improvement of the whole society to preclude war, and the other is intent on stopping the greedy and unethical people at the top of our institutions who work so hard orchestrating wars.

In either case, you have to decide whether you are involved in a mass communication strategy, or a strategy of reaching people personally, one by one.

I've concluded that there is little hope of progress with the individual approaches. I think you have to work with the 3 institutions of mass culture to replace the message and doctrine they are pushing out.

Since we have no money, we can only work with ideas. So, we have to identify which of the militarist beliefs are critical to the decisions and the behavior of the mainstream, career people working in the military industrial complex (including the 1.5 million active military employees) and demolish those. Given the fact that time is so limited, it is necessary to directly criticize those core positions, every time, in our personal and media interactions.

The MICC is a closed loop system. Here is a diagram, displaying the congress, the military, the contractors, lobbyists, the media, schools, churches, and other components of the MICC. The MICC is a closed loop system, in which people and institutions make deals with each other, and go on merrily for decades. They do not need *anything* from anybody outside their arrangement, because it is composed of stable, long established, mostly bilateral exchanges.

With substantial control over media, schools, and all layers of government, the military is the most powerful special interest group in the United States by far. With one flick of its mighty tail, it can reach 100 million people and undo all the work of the antiwar movement in a year. And if they fail, they'll pass a law.

I respect all of the work people are doing in the peace movement. I just don't think it is sufficient, or even necessary, for the goals of abolishing war, ending the foreign aggressions of the US, and downsizing the military to 20% or less its current size.

Since we don't own the media or the schools we have little choice but to be sharply dissonant, dissident, and noticeable, and newsworthy. As many of us have-- Nicholas Baptiste or even Ruth and I. in which we did a rather poor job, and so would most antiwar people if you don't listen up. We are blowing it, in all these exchanges and we need to excel. We need to control the outcome better.

Before we examine the "core beliefs" that the MICC people tell us, I just want to make one more point: their talk, their ideology, is fake. It is a rationalization serving useful social and internal, psychological needs and purposes.

These are the "persona", as CG Jung would say-- these are artifacts. While their actions are made at a much more primitive level-- the subconscious mind, the reptilian brain, from the gut (same as most people in every industry). Incidentally, you are reading from Todd Boyle's persona, as well. My real self and my real actions, are as base and egoistic as the next guy.

So, I think the most useful strategy is to demolish the *rationalizations* and *justifications* for war, that exist widely in the population. Break em down.

1. That "the nation" is a legitimate enterprise for Americans to assert any force or threat on people outside our jurisdiction, our population and political system. For example, the belief is already deeply established in the U.S., in "no taxation without representation". So, it is like a sacred cow, it is unthinkable to tax other countries.

And it's just as wrong to enforce any other law, or impose any other force, since they did not have a vote. Right?

What this means is the entire foreign policy of the United States is profoundly wrong and immoral. Huge elephant in the living room. 700 bases all over the world, a $trillion dollar military completely designed for foreign expeditionary force... etc.

Obviously they have layers upon layers of supporting hoo haa. They're going to jump up and say "We have to defend ourself".

- That preemptive invasions are the new "self defense" doctrine.

- That there is a terrorist threat. I want you to go to the nearest window, and open it, and yell "There is NO TERRORIST THREAT". Because if you can't be comfortable with this, you need come in off the counter recruiting line and think it over. Once you concede there is a large scale, WMD terrorist threat, you're bagged. Long version, available on request.

2. That the people in the MICC have done *anything* good since WW2. They haven't. Every single war and invasion has been an illegal aggression, motivated by money and business interests. They have distorted the entire economy and the culture.

3. That these wars originate in the American character, the democracy, etc. THEY DON'T. The preconditions and precursors for these wars are deliberately cultivated, on a permanent basis, by well known, highly visible indoctrination programs. and the triggering events are orchestrated and controlled entirely from the top, by well known people, the same people who have caused the last ten wars.

Again, there is a long rebuttal of why we are all NOT responsible for the wars, why the oligarchy IS responsible for the wars, and why it is perfectly rational and achievable to end wars by containing these sparkplugs, these detonator people, who keep igniting and unleashing the passions of wars.


Recommended reading on Causes of War

Dennis and Joey,

I appreciate your comments that war starts from greed and
spiritual ignorance. However, there are triggering factors
as well as the "pre existing conditions".

Most problems in engineering as well as politics, are overcome
by overcoming triggering or precipitating factors...for example
air travel is intrinsically unsafe. But civil aviation has
relentlessly fixed one flaw after another making air travel
safe enough. Gasoline is intrinsically flammable almost explosive.
Yet it's used .. Electricity, natural gas, we use right inside our homes.
Giant bridges, skyscrapers... you name it. All unsafe, made safe.

There is just as much greed and ignorance in countries not involved
in wars, as those involved in wars. SO: the burden of proof is
upon the spiritual theorist, to either establish that these countries
who are spared from wars, are more spiritually advanced, as
well as that this spiritual advancment is the critical thing sparing
them from wars. I think your hypothesis will not pass inspection.

The differentiating factor between warring and peaceful societies
is that the warring countries have allowed warmaking people
to get entrenched and build a base of power.
Responsible adults
in each country must drive out the warmakers from positions of
power, for our own survival. There is not time for the uplifting
and spiritual perfection of the masses. The nuclear weapons
are already piled up. The wars are already happening. In fact,
you spiritualist people are being protected from incineration
only by those of us who are struggling in the economic and
political arena, to curb the war makers. Because the time is now,
and the weapons are piled up, right here in Bangor WA.

I see great potential for the abolishment of war, because
war and cataclysm are so dangerous that abolishing war is
consistent with the greed and materialism of powerholders.

War has *always* been adverse to the ordinary population and
yet, those populations have *never* yet abolished war.
In this century, powerholders will abolish war, long before there
is economic justice let alone spiritual advancement. In fact,
economic injustice has been exacerbated by the series of
political structures that has intermediated in political and
economic conflicts since WW2, and that is the very reason
we still have wars everywhere except the nuclear states.




At 05:51 AM 4/8/2007, jbkranger wrote:
Greed and ignorance are the root causes of war. The corptocracty,
greedy as it is, could not exist without the greed of individual
consumers. We are ALL the cause of war. I recommed Thich Nhat Hahn's
book "Peace is Every Step" for more on this opinion.

Chapter 89

--- In, Todd Boyle wrote:
> Putting a stop to war requires that you have some theory
> of what is causing or triggering wars. Our opponents
> work hard promoting theories of action which cannot stop
> wars.
> Since 2003 the WAR in IRAQ has been blamed on Bush
> and the Neocons, the Republicans, the Democrats, the oil industry,
> global corporatocracy, the standing army, the military industrial
> complex, the Zionists, the Christian fundamentalists,
> the global banking cabal, and we the people--for all kinds of
> character flaws and spiritual failings.
> I'll just tell you, US aggressions are caused by a very small number
> of really rotten SOBs in positions of power. But they cannot be
> easily stopped without changing the story in the pulpit, in the
> media, and in the schools.
> But Wikipedia has a pretty good article on these causes.
> # 2 Factors leading to war
> * 2.1 Historical theories
> * 2.2 Psychological theories
> * 2.3 Anthropological theories
> * 2.4 Sociological theories
> * 2.5 Demographic theories
> * 2.6 Evolutionary psychology theories
> * 2.7 Rationalist theories
> o 2.7.1 Peace War Game
> * 2.8 Economic theories
> * 2.9 Marxist theories
> * 2.10 Political science theories
> Each of us must develop within us, a firm idea of the cause of
> recurring US attacks on other countries. Without this vision you
> cannot maintain a fervor or steadiness of action.
> The VFP mission is stopping wars.
> This is a
> VFP mailing list. I say: the mission statement is too abstract.
> It is really pretty lame.
> (a) Toward increasing public awareness of the costs of war.
> (b) To restrain our government from intervening, overtly and
> covertly, in the internal affairs of other nations
> (c) To end the arms race and to reduce and eventually eliminate
> nuclear weapons
> (d) To seek justice for veterans and victims of war
> (e) To abolish war as an instrument of national policy.
> Wikipedia is doing more to increase public awareness of
> the causes of war than the VFP. When does the VFP
> focus on the causes of war instead of "restraining our government"
> (which never works.) At that point, you're way past the power
> Todd Boyle toddboyle@... (425) 827-3107
> diagram of the military industrial complex

From: "dennis kyne"
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 14:47:48 +0000
Subject: RE: [vfptalk] Re: Recommended reading on Causes of War

try religion. add greed

and than you have some real war

the stats have stated for years.

WAR starts with religion....

the idea that it has anything to with oil and money,

well guess who says that is ok

the God's

need the stats, let me know, I will send them along


The Antiwar movement versus the Peace movement

The northwest regional conference of Veterans For Peace was held Apr. 29 and 30, 2007 in Olympia, WA. The VFP is one of the most coherent and united groups in the country, for its level of activism.

One of the well known rivalries within the VFP is between traditional VFPs and the more anti-military. Over things like the flag, honoring the dead. There are also, of course, differences between conservatives, and the left, the anti-imperialist about the character of U.S. society and the U.S. economy.

A more interesting division is between the peace viewpoint and the antiwar viewpoint. This division continues to affect the substance of what we do. VFP members still remain far from resolving or reconciling between these visions.

The antiwar vision looks at war and its causes mechanically. We look at systemic causes and the people and organizations who cause these wars. We look at concrete and immediate flows of money and resources, the laws or lack thereof, to correct them. We study economic theory, the plutocracy, the corporate, monetary and governmental regime. But we are more focused on Halliburton, Exxon Mobil, Lockheed Martin, the corruption in the Pentagon, the revolving door of lobbyists, the Israeli lobby and agencies, and other very unpleasant things.

The peace movement while not unaware of these things, believes the cause of war is in the human heart, the ignorance, the sinfulness, greed, anger, lust, racism, pride, etc. of the population.

The peace movement wants to go directly to these causes, hoping to reach and inspire millions of people to change their political and economic behavior-- so crucially and in such large numbers, as to end wars. They do things like Arlington West.

The antiwar movement while fully aware of these passions, the ignorance, the unresolved subconscious fears and urges of the population--we view those as preconditions, even universal preconditions but not precipitating causes. We think the Bush administration started the war in Iraq, in concert with a lot of other well-known, rotten SOBs and institutions from oil barons to Jerry Falwell to the Pentagon to banksters.

We see most of the planet living peacefully not because they are more spiritually enlightened than the average american, or because their governments or corporations are more generous or law abiding.

We think the rest of the planet is more peaceful because they don't have a gigantic, parasitic military industrial complex running out of control in their country. And consequently, their countries are not run by militarists.

I'm writing this is to strongly advise the Peace Movement to ask yourselves, what really causes wars? Is there any difference between a precipitating event, and a precondition? You are trying to remove the precondition. We are trying to remove the triggering event or sequence of events.

What are the sequences of events that you are trying to create???

What are the sequences of events that you are trying to prevent?

I am not aware of anybody in the peace movement that has a detailed, concrete map, or answer. to these questions. I suspect, perhaps unjustly but I suspect the peace movement prefers to do things that provides a pleasant and uplifting experience for themselves. An ennobling experience. Well, confronting and jailing criminals is NOT fun, especially these really nasty, cunning, highly willful, vengeful types. The core of the war movement-- still wanting war on Iraq, are in it for the money, for economic empire, and for religious extremism and racism.

Our world is full of absolutely horrific dangers that are controlled at the level of triggers not preconditions. The speeds we drive, commercial airliners, electric power or gas in our homes. The nuclear stockpile.

And finally, to those of you in the peace faction if you INSIST on trying singlehandedly to alter the developmental outcomes of the 50 million people in the educational system in the US, or the at least 100 million people under the spells of their church pastors, consider the math: will *you* change the culture or will the three institutions of mass culture continue winning? (The mass media, the pulpit, and the education system) I think we are hopelessly underfinanced and out gunned. Not enough people or money. Laughable.

It is in these 3 institutions of mass culture that racism, nationalism, and hatred and fear have been constantly nourished, the definition of masculinity, the acculturation and identity of young men to war and violence is passed on to each rising generation. The aforementioned Rotten SOBs have been there long before we arrived. They already influence these institutions decisively. That's how America became so militarized.

It is critical to go after those Rotten SOBs on the school board, in the media and in certain local churches, who are using these institutions to push war and hatred.

As proof of the efficacy of ideological purity campaigns, the McCarthyites were very successful at this in the 1950s. The Germans, have banned Nazi parties, books, and Hitler worship. The Jewish Anti Defamation leage has been very successful at demolishing overt anti-Jewish elements in US society. The African American movement likewise, demolishes any overt racist talk. None of these succeed quickly in changing the culture. Over decades they have achieved policy dominance, which is our goal.

So by all means, bring your message of peace to your local church, school board, and media. That is useful. But it is not sufficient. You have to actually go across the line, to oppose, to neutralize, the militarist.

Note carefully: when I say "the militarist" or "the flag waver", I am referring to the role of a person. I am not referring to the action of a person, and I'm certainly not referring to the whole person. First of all, you have a human being, which is sublime and infinite. And we all have our collections of thoughts and beliefs. Then, you have the behaviors such as to manufacture arms, or payoff the congress. Those I think are close to the problem. But to be precise, it is the roles, within the functioning MICC, which are to be opposed. Many of them already are illegal. For example it is not illegal to make large political contributions. It is illegal however, if those are connected with favors, in a bilateral trade.

But it is perfectly useless in stopping wars, to work on our own spiritual growth. You must drive the flagwavers, the national supremacists, the jingoists into the defensive. They have been intimidating and marginalizing the peace movement for decades. These are *real people* in your own community--- The story they're selling to the children, to their broadcast audience, or the church congregation must change. if you can't reform them, then you must drive them out, just as Don Imus was driven out. Take notes, organize, and drive them out.

That is the difference between the peace movement and the antiwar movement. We are going after the war making activity, and the war making people. Sorry about that. Some behaviors we will NOT tolerate anymore, call us intolerant.

Voting strategies are ineffective

At 10:13 AM 6/1/2007, o'Kelly McCluskey wrote, at
GREAT Message, Tom

Yes I agree-- it's a great analysis. Tom's prescription (boycott the major parties - [at bottom]) is also worth considering. However, IMO it is not likely to gain enough voters, soon enough to take hold and deliver results, in order to keep from fading away.

The reason "politics" seems dysfunctional to the observer, is that we are applying an incomplete model. For example, if you want to predict the orbits of planet, first of all you need to know its speed, its direction, and its distance from the sun. None of the orbits are perfect circles, they are elliptical.

Some people's ideas about politics leave out factors that are necessary to understand politics.

Some people's analysis of the facts is wrong. We are like ptolemy, trying to predict the planets with the wrong math. One can only imagine the mental suffering of the astronomers, with their Ptolemaic math.

So I would suggest discarding the word "political system" and at least, call it "the political economy". Better, we might call it "humanity". Because, what we are talking about is the entire domain of human behavior.

Surely I don't have to explain that the companies and wealthy individuals control lawmaking, the judiciary, and the regulatory bureaucracies, etc. What you may be missing however, is the layer that goes deeper, the layer on which corporations and the money system operate. The operation of the money economy is principally composed of people--- Including liberals as well as conservatives, engaged in the exchange of goods and services. So, the analytical model -- the predictive model-- for the political economy is WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY DO, not what they say they're doing, or even what they believe they are doing.

I have long complained the people in the peace movement think themselves different from Republicans and the neocons and fundamentalists, while behaving in exactly the same way 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Working in the same jobs, right alongside apocalyptic fundamentalists, sports fans, and madmen. And not even arguing with them-- but coexisting. This is corruption This is pragmatism. abandonment of principle, for material gain. It is materialism, collaboration within a vast machine that kills millions of people outside of itself.

The political economy, of course is composed mostly of companies where we are the employees, where obedience is absolute, and guided by our perverse system of notation called accounting. The number balances are absolutely not to be questioned. When was the last time you questioned the numbers in your bank account? Well you should because they are all lies. Humanity, hanging from a cross of numbers (not the cross of gold, of William Jennings Bryan) A totalitarian system, as deterministic as bees in a hive, or ants in an anthill. And we are pretty much doing it to ourselves thru our inattention and neglect. We aren't even maintaining the anthill. It is insanity. This planet is an insane asylum. Following rote procedure, as lemmings.

So, bottom line, I neither agree nor disagree with Tom's recommendation. I just think it is pathetic, insufficient. The only ethical as well as effective action of citizens today is to boycott the elements of the economy involved in the war, involved in corruption of the political system, and in the corruption of our institutions of mass culture (the moneyed interest' influence over the pulpit, the school systems, and of course the media. ) See my articl in Washington Free Press this month; in libraries and free newstands (in a couple weeks it will be at ) Even our writing and educating and debating, ultimately, is useless unless millions of people actually *QUIT* the jobs they're doing now, and get up every morning and do different sorts of activities which don't contribute to the wars- and such activities are few and far between, today. Do you understand, there is no "political" behavior that is going to change the system? No gimmick, no caucus, no letters to editors-- because the governmental apparatus including elections is a department of a corporation, it is a department of the economy which is far larger. The government is not a free-standing thing.

self hating veteran, lazy deadweight mf etc.

----- Original Message ----- From:
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 10:51 PM
Subject: [VFP92] America's Dysfunctional Political System

I was saddened to read recently that the only son of Andrew Bacevich, an officer in the US Army stationed in Iraq, became one of the many casualties there recently.

Usually I don't pay too much heed to who from America dies in Iraq, but I am kind of a fan of Bacevich's. He is a former career officer in the US Army, a Vietnam vet, now a professor of international relations at Boston University, a strong critic of US foreign and military policy, and definitely a critic of Bush's war in Iraq and the neo-con gang who helped bring it to us.

He recently wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, which examines his responsibility for his son's death. The article is titled, "I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty":

For me the article is remarkable because it fires a shot at America's political system and the way it has failed the people of America.

I am convinced that the nature of this dysfunctional, sick system is much to blame for the deploreable state of American foreign and military policy. This system has the following characteristics:

1. The politicians are chiefly concerned with maintaining their positions and the power of their parties. If the party is in control, then maintaining control is paramount. If the party is out of control, then regaining control is paramount. Other considerations, such as principle and formulating good policy are only secondary considerations.

One example of this is the number of Democrats who were only too anxious to provide Bush in 2002 with the congressional OK to invade Iraq. Clearly they were motivated strongly by the need to look tough on defense policy. There was little interest in examining this policy critically.

2. The parties demand that all hew to the party line and the two parties are nearly indistinguishable when it comes to foreign and military policy. That means that there is little diversity in thought in these areas. Therefore, nearly all politicians support a strong and dominating American military policy and nearly all politicians support Israel without question. This is true even though it is very apparent the current policies in these areas are detrimental to the interests of Americans.

3. Because of the group think process on Capitol Hill and the serious lack of consideration of alternative options, information, and opinions, the political process takes people who are good people as incoming legislators and turns them into group think automatons who must toe the party line. In many instances these people are even less informed about issues than the people they are representing. They become incredibly closed minded. Only when they are presented with a catastrophe, which is the direct result of their stupidity, (for example, the quagmire in Iraq) do they start wondering, "Well, maybe we were wrong. It's the administration's fault. They misled us."

4. Large sums of money are very important to the political process. People with a lot of money count very much. Those without, such as you or I, don't matter at all. The excessive time needed for campaigning exacerbates the corrupting influence of money. With presidential campaigning starting two years before the election, ridiculous amounts of money are spent to maintain the campaigns for this time period.

The biggest problem is the lack of diversity. There simply is little choice in American elections. You either vote Democrat or Republican and when it comes to foreign policy that is no choice at all. They are vitually the same.

I am struck by another recent op-ed written by Pat Buchanan in which he maintains the Democratic Party could support more funding for the war because the anti-war left had no other place to go. The anti-war grassroots of the Democratic Party may be unhappy with the sellout, but it is not going to vote Republican.

Maybe it is time for people to change this sick political system by refusing to vote for or support in any way any politician associated with either party. I think it is time that people BOYCOTT THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES. Simply refuse to vote for any member of these parties. Vote Green, vote Libertarian, vote Socialist, vote Independent, but do not vote Democrat or Republican at any level.

This is the philosophy I have adopted for myself. After what I have seen over the last few years, I will be damned if I ever vote again for another Democrat. I don't care what they say and what they stand for. Simply being a member of that party will disqualify them for my vote. Of course, the same applies to the Republican party, though there never was a great danger of me voting for a Republican.

The Iraq war should make it clear to all that this country needs a diverse political system where the choices are not limited to a duopoly. We either need independent politicians with diverse views or many parties with diverse views. Clearly, what we have now does not work.

Tom Krebsbach