Category Archives: War

Dick Cheney and the American System of War

Leave a reply

Former Vice President Richard “Dick” Cheney died on November 3, 2025 at the age of 84.  As secretary of Defense under President George H.W. Bush, Cheney was the architect of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and later, as vice president under George W. Bush, he was instrumental in the invasion and eventual conquest of Iraq.

Brown University’s Cost of War Project has modestly estimated that the “wars on terror” have resulted in the deaths of more than 940,000 people including 432,000 civilians and a monetary cost to the United States of about $8 trillion. 

Of course, Brown University’s study calls the post 9/11 U.S. military operations in the Middle East “wars on terror” when, in reality, they have been fought for the benefit of Israel and its Greater Israel Project, which has decimated the Arab world and has accomplished almost all of its objectives.

Cheney’s nefarious activities were not confined to mass murdering peoples that posed no threat to America’s national security.  He was a force behind the U.S. policy of torture (waterboarding), and nearly unlimited domestic surveillance (the Orwellian-labeled Patriot Act).

According to an article on the news and commentary website “Antiwar,” headlined “Dick Cheney: The Dark Legacy of a War Criminal,” Cheney suggested U.S. intelligence agencies must: [O]perate on the ‘dark side,’ spend time in the shadows, and use ‘any means at our disposal’ to achieve its objectives.” 

As if the U.S. Presidency was not unrestrained enough, Cheney advocated a “unitary executive” theory that the “president alone decides matters within the executive branch” without input from opposition voices within the government’s foreign policy agencies. 

The response by libertarian and alternative media outlets to Cheney’s demise were universal in their denunciation of the former vice president, calling him a “war criminal” and that he left this world with a “dark legacy.” 

It should be noted that a number of alternative media’s podcasters who have criticized Cheney regularly host guests and speakers who are former U.S. military and diplomatic personnel, ex-CIA agents and intelligence operatives, a number of whom participated in the Iraq wars and other American covert operations themselves.

Few, if any, who condemned the former vice president for his criminality mentioned or questioned why it was, and still is today, that monsters like Cheney were able to inflict so much death and destruction on peoples and nations across the globe who posed no threat to America. 

Could it be that the political system that Cheney operated under was the problem?  And, what is to be done to prevent future Cheneys from committing similar atrocities?

Unfortunately, “democratic” wars are paid for “by the people” and the costs are socialized among the population through taxation, inflation (money printing), and deficit financing.  Since warmongering politicians do not have to directly pay for conflicts, there will be a tendency for them to be more bellicose.  Moreover, democratic wars are collective enterprises where elected officials are not personally responsible for the actions of the government but are agents of the voters.   

Nor have the supposed checks and balances of constitutional government, so often touted by admirers of the U.S. Constitution, been able to prevent conflicts, as the horrific record of American warmaking sadly proves.

The passage of the U.S. Constitution established a powerful central state which could (and did) tap the resources and men of the individual states to conduct wars which eventually took place the world over. 

A weak national government, like that under the Articles of Confederation, or no central state at all, but instead a political order of numerous sovereigns (a world full of Switzerlands, Liechtensteins, etc.) would make warfare on a massive scale impossible.

Chip Gibbons, writing in the Jacobin magazine, called Cheney an “enemy of democracy whose agenda included war, indefinite detention, warrantless surveillance, and torture,” according to Alan Mosley. *

Cheney was not an enemy of democracy, but the product of a system that enables evil men to carry out the most heinous acts with little consequence, at least in this life. 

Labeling Dick Cheney a war criminal will tarnish his legacy, but it will not alter America’s murderous foreign policy course.  That will only come about when there is a recognition that the governing system itself needs to be abandoned and a decentralized political arrangement adopted.    

*Alan Mosely, “Dick Cheney (1941-2025): The Dark Legacy of a War Criminal,” Antiwar.com, 5 November 2025.  https://original.antiwar.com/Alan_Mosley/2025/11/04/dick-cheney-1941-2025-the-dark-legacy-of-a-war-criminal/

Antonius Aquinas@antoniusaquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

International Affairs Analyst Says Putin’s Time May Be Winding Down

1 Reply

Vladimir Putin has sky-high presidential approval ratings among Russians (the envy, no doubt, of every Western chief executive).  He recently triumphed at the Alaska summit, where he got President Donald Trump to back off of his demand for a cease fire in Ukraine.  The Russian president’s participation at the 2025 China Victory Day parade further cemented Russo-Chinese relations, and he has been credited with a reproachment between China and India.  So, why is at least one prominent analyst predicting Putin’s time is coming to an end? 

It seems that, after all of these achievements, Putin’s handling of the Ukraine war is coming under growing criticism – not so much from the populace, but from elements within the Russian “thinking class.”  They want an end to the conflict and the punishment and/or elimination of the Western-backed Volodymyr Zelensky regime.

Thus, Putin’s political exit has been predicted by American historian and longtime Russian affairs analyst Prof. Gilbert Doctorow, the author of War Diaries. Vol. 1: The Russian-Ukraine War, 2022-2023. Doctorow now believes that Putin’s slow, methodical war of attrition against Ukraine has taken too long and, if continued, could lead to the regional conflict spinning out of control and igniting a nuclear conflagration. 

Doctorow has also criticized Putin’s lenient attitude toward the many Western provocations taken against Russia, with the latest talk of the U.S. supplying Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, which could be fitted with nuclear warheads.  The issuance of Tomahawks is on top of the massive aid – military, strategic, intelligence, and financial – that the West has provided without which Ukraine would completely collapse.

While Doctorow advises that Putin end the war as quickly as possible, it must be noted that the perspicacious Paul Craig Roberts has been one of the few, from almost the start of the war, who called for Putin to take decisive action to end what the Russians call a “special military operation.”

Roberts believes that the West is using the conflict as a means to ultimately collapse Russia, divide it politically, and plunder its resources. A fragmented Russia will provide no opposition to a unipolar world dominated by the United States.     

In his latest article, Roberts asks:

    Will he again be ‘Putin-the-Unready’ as he was in

South Ossetia in 2008, in Ukraine in 2014, in 2022

when Russia was forced to intervene in Donbas,

and when the Russian strategic bomber force was

attacked on June 1. *  

In recent podcasts and essays, Doctorow has broken from most of the foreign policy analysts of the alternative media who continue to speak in positive terms of Putin’s deliberate, painstaking approach of slow attrition in Ukraine and his continuing leniency to hostile Western action toward Russia, with now demeaning talk from U.S. politicians including President Donald Trump that call Russia a “paper tiger.” 

Doctorow believes that Putin’s reign has run its course:

                                    I am suggesting that the era of Vladimir Putin is coming to

                                a close.  . . . He no longer has the courage of his convictions,

                                that his threats meant to deter Western enemies are empty

                                verbiage.  . . . He has pulled up the red lines

                                he clearly set out one year ago with respect to long range

                                missiles being supplied to Ukraine, and that he is drawing

                                out the war in Ukraine by not using . . . hypersonic missiles to

                                end the war now. **

Whether such a seemingly implausible scenario comes about or that Russia eventually attains its goals with Putin in charge, the West will continue to escalate.  One bright spot, however, is that the current leadership of Europe’s most war-like states – Keir Starmer of Great Britain, Friedrich Merz of Germany and Emmanuel Macron of France – are widely unpopular and most likely do not have a long political shelf life.  Hopefully, their respective replacements will focus on the monumental economic and social problems that confront each nation and the Ukraine war will be put on the back burner.

One theme sometimes heard by alternative media commentators is that the Russian economy has improved since the start of the special military operation. While Western sanctions have proved to be mostly ineffectual, wars are always a detriment to economic life except, of course, to the arms makers and their bought politicians. 

The opportunity cost of producing guns, bullets, and missiles is the loss of the production of consumer goods – refrigerators, cars, computers, etc.  While it might not be directly seen, Putin’s slow march through Ukraine is taking a toll on the Russian economy.

More important than the economic degradation of society is that the war is being fought between two largely white populations.  The slaughter of whites will mean a decline in birth rates.  This unspoken aspect of the war, no doubt, has always been a policy of the enemies of the Occidental peoples.

While a certain segment of the Russian political elite may want to replace Putin, the ultimate responsibility for the Ukraine war and (God forbid) a possible nuclear exchange is with the collective West, in particular the United States. 

If President Trump really wanted to stop the killing, he merely has to cut off financial aid, end the considerable U.S. military and intelligence assistance to the Zelensky regime, and the war would be over in days.

If these ominous trends continue, it appears that only an act of Divine intervention can avoid a nuclear disaster. 

*https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2025/10/03/putin-the-unready/

**https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2025/10/04/conversation-with-professor-glenn-diesen-restoring-russias-deterrent-or-emboldening-nato/

Antonius Aquinas@antoniusaquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

Trump’s Grandiose Political Centralization Scheme Not America-First in Spirit

4 Replies

Colorful houses of the coastal town of Ilulissat in western Greenland.

Although Donald Trump is now in office, his statements since the election indicated he has forgotten his pledge to follow an “America first” foreign policy. This is what he promised during the recent presidential contest and what he pledged in the 2016 campaign, but failed to deliver during his first term.  While domestic issues are what a president is mostly concerned with, the most important decisions surround foreign affairs, since they often involve war.

Since his lopsided victory over the hapless Kamala Harris, Trump has made few references about reigning in the murderous U.S. Empire, but instead has talked about buying or invading Greenland, seizing the Panama Canal, and making Canada an American state.  After the resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump said that “many people in Canada love being the 51st state,” according to The New York Times, Jan. 7.*

If Joe Biden or Kamala Harris said such things, the MAGA crowd would be up in arms and accuse them of moving the country in the direction of the New World Order.

Whether Trump follows through with such fanciful plans, it shows that he does not understand what lies at the heart of the social and economic problems that America and the Western world face.  Trump’s ideas would create greater political centralization, as an American-Canadian or American-Canadian-Mexican-Greenland union would create a gigantic North American state.

For anyone concerned with individual liberty, prosperity, and the No. 1 social issue that confronts the U.S. – illegal immigration – a North American superstate would be a nightmare. Gone would be the vital ability of “dissenters” to “vote with their feet” and move to less burdensome political jurisdictions.

In the United States, one can see this taking place on a daily basis as Americans move from high-tax and high regulatory states to those less onerous.  Of course, citizens cannot escape the federal government’s dictates unless one decides to expatriate. Students of the nation’s history know the often-overlooked Anti-federalists made this argument in their opposition to the Constitution which has, over time, proven to be quite prescient.

The idea that more political entities lead to greater freedom has been proven by history.  The best example of this is pre-modern Europe which was made up of a host of kingdoms, duchies, and free states with no dominant central government that could tax without impunity.  It is well accepted by historians that Europe’s rise in its standard of living was the result of its political decentralization that resulted in low levels of taxation.

A multitude of nation states allows for “competition,” where if one government becomes too tyrannical, people have an opportunity to flee to another land.  In recent U.S. history, a number of draft-aged men fled to Canada instead of being sent off to Vietnam to fight in what they considered an immoral war.  A colossal North American state would have ended such an option.

Although not explicitly discussed by Trump, a North American Union would more than likely mean the creation of a new monetary unit as was done with the euro when the European Union was formed.  Despite the warnings of some economists, price inflation in Europe escalated for countries like Germany once they relinquished their monetary autonomy. 

Currently, national currencies “float” against one another in terms of exchange rates. If one central bank inflates its currency too much, its money will lose purchasing power to less inflationary nations.  While not nearly as good as a gold standard, there is a sort of a “check and balance” on central bank monetary debasement with floating exchange rates.

A single North American monetary unit would not face the kind of limit that now exists, where the Canadian dollar, Mexican peso and U.S. dollar vie against each other.  A North American currency would be another ominous step to a one-world currency – a dream of New World Order proponents. 

While Trump’s disappointing talk about political centralization looks like a betrayal of the principles of America first principles, there may be a glimmer of hope.  In a recent Truth Social post, Trump reposted a video of Prof. Jeffery Sachs, a longtime critic of American foreign policy, criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s genocidal actions in Gaza and throughout the Middle East calling him a “deep, dark SOB.”

Since the video has been posted, Netanyahu has canceled his plans to attend Trump’s inauguration, the implication being the Israeli leader was offended by the comment.

Only time will tell if Trump will abandon his promised America-first policies or pursue a drive to a New World Order.

*David E. Sanger and Michael D. Shear, “Trump Floats Using Force to Take Greenland and the Panama Canal,”  The New York Times, 7 January 2025. 

Antonius Aquinas@antoniusaquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

Economic Collapse May Be the Only Way to Prevent World War III

3 Replies

The tensions between the West and Russia over the Ukraine have escalated over the past few months with an almost daily occurrence of provocations and belligerent talk mostly from members of NATO.  In response, Russia sent a naval contingent to the Caribbean in a show of force.  Some of the Western provocations include:

  • Polish President Andrzej Duda’s willingness to place U.S. nuclear weapons on Polish soil;
  • German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius’ s call for reinstitution of a draft;
  • A hand-delivered check by Biden to Volodymyr Zelensky as part of the $95 billion U.S. “defense” package for Ukraine
  • A request by Zelensky for Westerners to train troops on Ukrainian soil; and
  • US and NATO okaying Ukraine to fire long-range American weapons as much as 12 miles into Russian territory

It is apparent that, until Russian President Vladimir Putin capitulates to Western demands in regard to Ukraine, NATO will continue to push the envelop.  In hindsight, analysts such as Paul Craig Roberts have, from the start, urged Putin to swiftly finish off Ukraine militarily and replace the Zelensky regime with one favorable to Russia.  A protracted struggle, Roberts warned, would give the West more time to supplement Ukraine: “The conflict dragged on, because having declared the intervention limited, the Kremlin left Kiev to continue the war, thus playing into Western hands as the West gradually widened the war.” *

Unfortunately for Russia, Paul Craig Roberts’s prognostication is now coming to fruition. 

The counter argument to a more aggressive Russia is that Putin realizes that the West is run by a pack of sociopaths who would have no qualms launching WWIII, which would include the use of nuclear weapons, or ignite a major military conflagration in the area.  The Russian president sees that the West holds a decisive military advantage over Russia even if it allied with China.  The U.S. alone spends more than the combined expenditures of the top nine militaries in the world.

The United States has thus the ability and means to operate and intervene in almost any sector of the world.  It is able to do so because it has had, for the longest time, an economy which was able to not only produce goods for the domestic market and also for its foreign adventures.  It takes wealth to be able to arm, transport, deploy, and maintain men in distant lands.

Because of America’s relatively free economy, it could produce a seemingly endless supply of military hardware for itself, but also to buy off client states and fund proxy wars.  In contrast, the Soviet Union could never export communism in any significant way after World War II because it lacked the means to do so.  Its economy was a basket case that could barely feed its citizens. 

While the U.S. may have the military capability to be the world’s policeman, its actions in the Ukraine are ultimately controlled by ideology.  And, for the longest time, U.S. foreign policy has been one of interventionism and war with the ultimate goal of the establishment of a one-world state.  Its proxy war in Ukraine is designed to cripple Russia, which stands as a roadblock to this long-desired goal.

Since it is apparent that the principles guiding U.S. foreign policy are not going to change anytime soon, the nation will continue on its bellicose course until it no longer has the means to do so.  This would mean a financial crisis, most likely in the form of a dollar collapse, which would ground the economy to a halt. 

In such a scenario, the United States would be following the course that Great Britain took after World War II, when its empire could no longer be sustained since the country insanely exhausted itself in the conduct of fighting two world wars. 

A similar, earlier historical example was the Western Roman empire, which, through currency debasement, heavy taxation and government largesse, ruined its economy and then could no longer maintain its empire.

 The ideology of Great Britain and Rome did not change, however, they simply no longer had the means to sustain and expand their empires.

Despite massive deficits, record-setting inflation, and a recent bank crisis in March, 2023, a financial crisis does not appear to be on the horizon.  Although things can change quickly, for the foreseeable future, the U.S. empire is in no danger from internal collapse.

While an economic collapse would mean misery for millions of Americans, it would be, in a sense, retribution for the nation’s murderous and costly foreign policy, which has brought, and still is bringing, untold death and destruction to millions of people.  

*Paul Craig Roberts, “Normalizing War with Russia,” PaulCraigRoberts.org, 6 June 2016, https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2024/06/06/normalizing-war-with-russia/

President Trump’s Role in the Ukraine War

8 Replies

With his usual braggadocio, former President Donald Trump has promised that if returned to the White House he would end the Ukraine conflict within hours and claims, as many of his supporters do, that the war would never have taken place had he been in office.  Like most of his campaign promises during his 2016 presidential run – drain the swamp, pull troops out of Afghanistan, build a wall – very few were accomplished, despite the fact that the former president had a Republican House and Senate at the start of his first term.

Listening to Trump’s often incoherent statements on the Ukrainian imbroglio shows that the ex-chief executive has learned little from his four years in the Oval Office.  While talk of ending wars in a few hours may garner popular support, translating them into actual results is a far different and, to say the least, difficult matter, as Trump should now realize after his fruitless years as president.

Trump had a chance to de-escalate tensions in the Ukraine that had been building especially after the Western-inspired coup of February, 2014 which replaced the democratically-elected government of Viktor Yanukovych.  Yet, the former president did nothing to remedy the situation and, in fact, worsened matters by providing military hardware to the Ukraine, which the Obama Administration had denied.

Demonstrating a lack of understanding of the region’s geo-political realities, Trump decided to provide the Ukraine with military equipment.  In December, 2017 the U.S. shipped, among other weaponry, Javelin anti-tank missile systems, with the first sale completed in March of the following year to the sum of $47 million.  Reportedly, the former president was convinced by his advisors that the military aid would be “good for U.S. business.” 

If one considers the military industrial complex a vibrant part of the U.S. economy and not a parasitical drain that redistributes scarce resources away from the production of useful consumer goods into the creation of destabilizing and murderous weapons of war, then – “yes” – military spending is good for business.  For those, like Trump, who support such an idea are apparently unfamiliar with Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler who rightly called “defense spending” a racket:

I spent 33 years in the Marines, most of my time being a high-class muscle man for big business, for Wall Street and the bankers.  In short, I was a racketeer for Capitalism.*

After the provocative action of supplying the Ukraine with military hardware, the Trump Administration inflamed relations further by pulling out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) which was agreed to by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987. The landmark treaty banned missiles with range between 500 and 5,500 km (310-3,400 miles).**

The U.S. accused Russia of non-compliance to the terms of the treaty, a charge that the Russians and many military analysts denied.  This, of course, led to a greater level of distrust between the two nations and went against candidate Trump’s aims of lessening tensions between the two powers.

Trump, as with the pro-war Western media, is ignorant of the historical context that played into Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade the Ukraine.  It is a well-established fact that the U.S. and Western powers gave assurances to Russia as far back as when the Berlin Wall came down that NATO would not expand eastward.  That promise has been repeatedly broken as NATO now includes 31 nations with Sweden set to come on board in 2024.***

Making matters worse, the Biden Administration, the war mongers in Congress, and the U.S.’s NATO lapdogs have escalated matters with tremendous financial and military assistance, which has done little to stop the Russians, but has resulted in the needless slaughter of thousands and the wholesale destruction of Ukrainian territory.  The introduction of cluster bombs into the fray and the promise of F-16 fighter-jets capable of carrying nuclear war heads has heightened the possibility of a general conflagration. 

 None of the declared Republican presidential contenders have critiqued the former president’s reckless Ukrainian policy.  Some of the candidates (Chris Christie, Nikki Haley) have instead insanely called for greater support of the Zelensky regime!    

The American involvement in the Ukrainian War has nothing to do with its national security, but with the interests of the U.S. Empire.  The tragedy of the Trump Presidency is that things were supposed to be different.  Instead of non-intervention, the Administration armed Ukraine, stationed troops in Syria, assassinated an Iranian general on a Middle East peace mission, and committed a host of other head scratching acts which went against candidate Trump’s pledge of an “America First” foreign policy that propelled him to victory in 2016.

To think that things will be different in a second go-around is clearly delusional, as the former president is now campaigning with never-ending war proponent Senator Lindsey Graham.   

*See War is a Racket, Port Townsend, WA.: Feral House, 2003; 1935.

**“INF Nuclear Treaty: US Pulls Out of Cold War-Era Pact With Russia,” BBC, 2 August 2019.   https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565

***Patrick Wintour, The Guardian, 22 January 2022 ttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/12/russias-belief-in-nato-betrayal-and-why-it-matters-today

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

Maybe the West Should Adopt Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Policy

1 Reply

Iran Nuclear Weapons

Prior to the modern age, when war was engaged in, combatants, for the most part, acted by a code of conduct which attempted to minimize civilian deaths and the destruction of non-participants’ property. With the onset of the democratic age and the idea of “total war” such modes of conduct have tragically fallen by the wayside, the consequence of which has made warfare far more bloody and destructive.

The ultimate violation of “just warfare” has been the possession and use of nuclear weapons which by their very nature cannot be reconciled with any notion of a civilized society.  Of all the hysteria over “terrorism,” nuclear weapons are rarely discussed anymore, but are the ultimate form of terror.

Despite the obvious fact that nuclear weapons cannot be reconciled with any moral code of warfare, Western nation-states continue to possess them and the US has actually used them in the final stages of WWII as it mercilessly bombed the Japanese civilian centers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

While most modern scholarship has abandoned the older idea of moral conduct in warfare, the great libertarian theorist, Murray Rothbard, continued the venerable tradition in his thought and applied it not only to nuclear weapons, but bombing as well:

    Not only should there be joint disarmament

of nuclear weapons, but also of all weapons

capable of being fired massively across national

borders; in particular bombers.  It is precisely

such weapons of mass destruction as the missile

and the bomber which can never be pinpoint-

targeted to avoid their use against innocent

civilians.*

He continues:

. . .  since modern air and missile weapons

cannot be pinpoint-targeted to avoid harming

civilians, their very existence must be condemned.

For a New Liverty II

It is beyond hypocritical, therefore, that the US has repeatedly accused Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons despite the fact that the nation’s leadership has consistently declared that it will not do so because of its religious beliefs. In June, President Trump called off retaliatory raids on Iranian targets after it downed a US drone (which had flown into Iranian airspace), citing that it would cost the lives of some 150 people.  In response, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif exposed the hypocrisy of the US’s position on nuclear weapons:

You were really worried about 150 people?

How many people have you killed with a

nuclear weapon?  How many generations have

you wiped out with these weapons?**

Zarif added:

It is us who, because of our religious views,

will never pursue a nuclear weapon.

Not only has Iran’s leadership consistently declared that it would not use or build nuclear weapons, but it has stood by its words.  During the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88), Iraq (with US knowledge) repeatedly used chemical weapons.  Despite Iran’s  protests to the U.N., it refused to take action – mainly because the US through its position on the Security Council tabled any attempt to curtail Iraq’s nefarious actions.***

Despite the flagrant violation of international law, Iran refused to retaliate, although it had the capacity and certain justification in doing so.  The Ayatollah, in a religious ruling – fatwa – at the time of the war, asserted that such an act (the use of chemical/nuclear weapons) was “forbidden by god.”

This has been the position of the Ayatollahs since the formation of the Islamic Republic.  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated that “from an ideological and fighi [Islamic jurisprudence] perspective, we consider developing nuclear weapons as unlawful.  We consider using such weapons as a big sin.”  A top-ranking cleric, Grand Ayatollah Yusef Saanei, confirmed that this is part of Islamic doctrine:

There is complete consensus on this issue.  It is

self-evident in Islam that it is prohibited to have

nuclear bombs. It is eternal law, because the

basic function of these weapons is to kill innocent

people.  This cannot be reversed.

Sounds Rothbardian!

Despite Iranian claims to the contrary, the US and the controlled press continue to mischaracterize Iran’s position on nuclear weapons. Not only has it lied, but it continues to enact crippling sanctions on the beleaguered nation causing untold suffering which itself is an act of war.

The fact that Iran follows a moral principle which was once part of Western thought shows how far the Western world, especially the US, has declined in civility.  A return to a saner, more just position on nuclear weapons will only take place when there is a change in ideology. Under current intellectual conditions, such a change appears unlikely.  A rethinking will only take place of necessity when America has exhausted itself through debt and money printing and can no longer sustain its Empire and nuclear capabilities.

*See, Murray N. Rothbard, For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, 293.

**Reuters, “Iran Will Never Pursue a Nuclear Weapon, Says Foreign Minister.”  24 April 2019.

***Ted Snider, “Iran, Islam, and Banning the Bomb.”  Antiwar.com 30 September 2019.

 

Antonius Aquinas@antoniusaquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.comhttps://antoniusaquinas.com

The Geopolitical Consequences of a Coming Recession

12 Replies

Irian Military

With the recent ominous inversion of the 2-10 year yield curve and its near infallible predictive recessionary power, the consequences for the economy are plain to see, however, what has not been spoken of by pundits will be the effect of a recession on US foreign policy.  If a recession comes about prior to November 2020, or if economic indicators such as GDP plummet even further, the chances of a Trump re-election is extremely problematic even if the Democrats nominate a socialist nut case such as Bernie Sanders or Pocahontas.

Elizabeth Warren has been the most vocal about coming economic troubles:

Warning lights are flashing.  Whether it is

this year or next year, odds of another

economic downturn are high – and growing. . . .

 

When I look at the economy today, I see

a lot to worry about again.  I see a

manufacturing sector in recession.  I see

a precarious economy built on debt – both

household debt and corporate debt and that

is vulnerable to shocks.  And I see a number

of serious shocks on the horizon that could

cause our economy’s shaky foundation to crumble.*

Warren

A “doom and gloomer” Demo?

If the economy cannot be reversed, despite the likelihood of rate cuts in September and a possible resumption of “QE” by the end of the year, President Trump will probably look for some “victory” or success to divert public attention away from deteriorating economic conditions.  The most likely targets will be renewal of hostilities toward Iran and/or an escalation of pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to resign.

Of course, the US has been conducting economic warfare on Iran ever since Trump stupidly pulled out of the nuclear agreement and began applying even more crippling sanctions on Iran.  In June, armed hostilities were about to take place over the Iranians downing of a US drone over its air space.  Reportedly, at the last minute, Trump called off retaliation, enraging, no doubt, the bloodthirsty neocons itching for an excuse to unleash more death and destruction.

Another factor, which has been little spoken of, but may contribute to foreign intervention is that Trump has alienated a number of his political base especially the spokesmen among the Alt Right.  While he still commands high poll numbers among Republicans and still attracts impressive rallies of “deplorables,” a number of his prominent backers, who were so crucial for his success in 2016, are, to say the least, disappointed over his inability to stem the tide of illegal immigration.  Moreover, these voices feel rightly betrayed since he has done nothing to halt the Internet tech giants from de-platforming many of their social media activity.

Another group which may be quickly added to disillusioned Trump supporters are gun owners and free-speech advocates if the President goes along with the proposed draconian “red flag” legislation. If these totalitarian measures are enacted, 2nd Amendment defenders will probably not vote for Trump’s opponent in 2020, but instead, may stay home in protest.

In electoral politics, voter enthusiasm can sometimes offset money and media control which was certainly the case for Trump both in the Republican primaries and the general election.  To win again, he will need to mobilize similar sentiment.

The politically savvy neocons, which the President has insanely surrounded himself with, are certainly aware of this dynamic which will give them considerable leverage to push forward their agenda.  A desperate Trump will surely be more malleable if a second term is in jeopardy.  Just look at the recent capitulation when there is, as of yet, no recession, yet, he called off the additional Chinese tariffs after the Dow plunged 800 points.

Even if a recession does not rear its ugly head, an armed conflict with Iran is a distinct possibility.  The more hard line neocons understand that they would be out of power under a Democratic president who may revert to compromise and negotiations to re-engineer a nuclear deal with Iran.  The push for war will intensify if Trump’s poll numbers drop as the election gets nearer due to a moribund economy.

Of course, the US is infamous for provocations and with the huge military build up in the Persian Gulf, any of the many trip wires may spring, leading to a local war which might turn into a general conflagration.

While it is not a certainty that a recession will lead to regime change in Washington, Trump has mistakenly tied his political fortunes to the well being of the economy especially the stock market.  He had the chance and the public support at the beginning of his term to level with the country and explain the monumental financial and economic problems which exist and that he had pointed out during the campaign.  Unfortunately, for both his and the nation’s future, he chose business as usual putting his own political goals (re-election) over the good of the country.

The cost of that choice is now coming to bear which may end in another war that will certainly seal the President’s fate and likely that of America.

*Sanjana Karanth, “Elizabeth Warren Predicts Another Economic Downturn.”  Politics.  22 July 2019.

Antonius Aquinas@antoniusaquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.comhttps://antoniusaquinas.com

The Constitution Myth

22 Replies

One reason for the failure of the modern conservative and libertarian movements to scale back, in even a miniscule way, the now gargantuan US welfare/warfare state has been the misinterpretation of the US Constitution.  Many conservatives have a slavish devotion to the document, placing it on a par with the Ten Commandments and New Testament.

A typical misunderstanding of the Constitution’s history and content appeared in this recent op-ed:



The Constitution was intended to limit 1) the power


of government over the citizenry 2) the power of each branch of


government and 3) the power of political/financial elites over the


government and the citizenry, as the Founders recognized the intrinsic risks


of an all-powerful state, an all-powerful state dominated by one branch of


government and the risks of a financial elite corrupting the state to serve


the interests above those of the citizenry.*

The author, like so many “Constitution enthusiasts” has also been hostile to the Medieval era, denigrating its institutions and social constructs – feudalism, aristocracy, crusading – when, in fact, the Middle Ages, in many respects, were far freer with less government than the present epoch. **

When the founding fathers decided to meet in Philadelphia in 1787, they did so at first to “amend” the Articles of Confederation which had guided the young country through some perilous times.  While the Articles had some defects (some libertarians even contend that they were too statist***), the delegates, at first, did not want it scrapped, however, it was the “leading lights” of the convention which connived to completely do away with it.

By superior political maneuvering, the pro-Constitution forces were able to ramrod their plan through despite being in the minority.  Not only were the majority of the delegates initially against scrapping the Articles, but most Americans were opposed to the creation of a new central government. 

Despite this, the Constitution was ruthlessly pushed through and, as its opponents feared, America would be saddled with a highly centralized national government, the loss of considerable state sovereignty, and the eventual erosion of individual liberties even with the inclusion of a Bill of Rights.

A brief examination of the document reveals that its implicit and explicit language grants wide latitude for the expansion of state power.  In its Preamble, the ambiguous clause to “promote the general welfare” can and has led to all sorts of destructive social engineering schemes.  More ominously, for anyone that is under the illusion that America is governed by a “federal” system, they should reread Article VI which in part says

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. [emphasis added]

An all-powerful central state went against much of Western history after the fall of the Roman Empire and the idea was always feared by philosophers.  Basic political theory and practical experience showed that a multitude of sovereign states were preferable not only for the protection of personal liberty, but for economic growth.  Numerous states and jurisdictions were a far greater check on government than the much celebrated “separation of powers” concept of constitutional government.

Under the Articles of Confederation, each individual state was autonomous while the national government had to rely on the states for most of its support.  Unfortunately, it will never be known what would have happened if the country remained as a confederacy of states, it is likely however, that there would have been less bloodshed, greater economic growth, and more personal freedom under a decentralized regime.

It is curious, therefore, why so many on the Right continue to revere the Constitution as some great bulwark against state power.  Much of it probably stems from ignorance or personal bias against the political conditions which existed prior to the late 18th century. 

Much of European history was under the sway of monarchial and aristocratic rule and the integral presence of the Catholic Church in society with a diffusion of power among kings, princes, dukes and Churchmen.  While far from perfect, the social order which existed under Christendom may not have been as materially or technologically advanced as contemporary times, but in regard to morality, justice, and individual freedom, there is no comparison.  The Christian age saw nothing of the social depravity, war making with its mass murder, the trampling of individual rights, and the existence of totalitarian government as witnessed in the supposedly “enlightened” modern age.

Decentralized Europe of 1300

Until it is realized that the Constitution is an impediment to rolling back the American Leviathan, there will be little progress in the fight for individual liberty and economic progress.

   

*Charles Hugh Smith, “Let’s Face It: The U.S. Constitution Has Failed.”  Zero Hedge.  20 February 2019. 

**One example, Charles Hugh Smith, “America’s ‘Neo-Feudal’ System is ‘Both False & Precarious.”  Zero Hedge 19 December 2018.

***David Gordon, ed., Strictly Confidential: The Private Volker Fund Memos of Murray N. Rothbard, Auburn, AL.: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2015, pp. 96-98.

Antonius Aquinas@antoniusaquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

https://antoniusaquinas.com

[emphasis added]

Debt, Death, and the US Empire

11 Replies
Deep State Operative John Bolton

In a talk which garnered little attention, one of the Deep State’s prime operatives, National Security Advisor John Bolton, cautioned of the enormous and escalating US debt.  Speaking before the Alexander Hamilton Society, Bolton warned that current US debt levels and public obligations posed an “economic threat” to the nation’s security:

It is a fact that when your national debt gets to the level ours is, that it constitutes an economic threat to the society.  And that kind of threat ultimately has a national security consequence for it.*

What was most surprising about Bolton’s talk was that there has been little reaction to it from the financial press, the markets themselves, or political commentators. While the equity markets have been in the midst of a sell off, it has not been due (as of yet) to US deficits, currently in excess of $1trillion annually.  Instead, the slide has been the result of fears over increase in interest rates and the continued trade tensions with China.

While Bolton’s warning about the debt is self-serving, it is accurate in the sense that the US Empire which, in part, he directs is ultimately dependent on the strength of the economy.  “National security” is not threatened by a debt crisis which would mean a compromised dollar, but such an event would limit what the US could do globally.  Real national security is defense of the homeland and border control – non intervention abroad. 

War mongers like Bolton are fearful that a debt crisis would necessitate a decline in US power overseas.  America is fast approaching what took place with the British Empire after its insane involvement in the two World Wars and its own creation of a domestic welfare state which exhausted the nation and led to the displacement of the British pound as the “world’s reserve currency.” 

The US-led wars in the Middle East have been estimated by a recent Brown University study to have cost in the neighborhood of $4 trillion.** Despite this squandering of national treasure and candidate Trump calling the Iraq War a “disaster,” as president, Trump increased “defense” spending for FY 2019 to $716 billion.***

US Military Bases Around the World

Profligate US spending and debt creation has, no doubt, been noticed by those outside of the Empire.  It is probably why Russian President Vladimir Putin has been so hesitant to take any serious action against the numerous provocations that the US has taken around the globe and against Russian interests directly.  The wily Putin probably figures that an implosion of US financial markets would eventually limit America’s ability to foment mayhem and havoc internationally. 

The Trump Administration’s latest bellicose act, engineered by – you guessed it – John Bolton, has been the withdrawal from the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty (INF). The treaty, signed in 1987, was a landmark achievement of the Reagan Administration which de-escalated tensions between the two super powers and kept a lid on a costly arms buildup that neither can afford. 

The next financial downturn will certainly dwarf the 2008 crisis, the latter of which nearly brought down the entire financial system.  The next one will be far worse and will last considerably longer since nothing has been resolved from the first crisis.  The only thing that has occurred has been the creation of more debt, not only in the US, but by all Western nation states.

Under current ideological conditions, a change in US foreign policy to non-intervention is unlikely. Public opinion is decidedly pro-military after years of indoctrination and propaganda by the press, government, academia, and the media.  It will take a fall in America’s economic power, specifically the loss of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, which will ultimately bring down the empire that has neocons like John Bolton concerned.

Unfortunately, until that time, the US will continue its rampaging ways.  The day of reckoning, however, appears to be fast approaching and instead of a defeat on the field of battle, the US Empire will collapse under a mountain of debt.  It would be more than fitting that such a scenario should play itself out which would thus begin the very necessary retribution process that may, at least in a small sense, compensate those who have suffered and died from America’s murderous foreign policy.

*Tyler Durden, “John Bolton Warns National Debt Is An ‘Economic Threat’ To The US Security.”  Zero Hedge.  01 November 2018.    

**Jason Ditz, “Study: US Wars Cost $4 Trillion, Killed 259,000.”  Antiwar.  29 June 2019.

Military Benefits, “2019 Defense Budget Signed byTrump.”  Military Benefits. September, 2018. 

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

Mike Pompeo and John Bolton: Trump’s Tag Team of Death and Destruction!

3 Replies

Trump Pompeo Bolton Trump’s Men!

With the welcome departure of war mongering UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, the Trump Administration’s neocon tag team of death and destruction – Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor (NSA), John Bolton – have enthusiastically taken up where the repellent Haley has left off.  It is highly doubtful that the former Ambassador will meekly return from under the rock in which she crawled, but will reappear possibly as a primary challenger to her former boss in 2020, and, most certainly, as a Presidential contender in 2024.

Last week, Messrs Pompeo and Bolton were dutifully carrying forth Haley’s promises of mayhem to anyone opposed to US hegemony even if those “enemies” have never taken hostile action against the US mainland.  Of course, threats and attacks against nations which have done nothing to America have never much mattered to the foreign policy establishment!

Haley Pompeo Bolton Neocon Triumvirate

In one of the most provocative comments ever made by a US diplomat, maniacal Mike threatened Iran with mass starvation of its population (via US sanctions) if it does not submit to Uncle Sam’s outrageous and humiliating demands.  In a BBC interview, the Secretary of State warned that:

[Iran’s] leadership has to make a decision that they want their people to eat.*

Following up on his genocidal warning, the Secretary of State (with a supposedly straight face) said that Iran was a “destabilizing influence” in the Mideast and was a state sponsor of terrorism.

Incredibly, the sociopathic Pompeo actually believes that Iran has been the greatest disrupter of peace in the Middle East when, in fact, it has been the nation in which he represents (along with Israel) that has been the real culprit of state sponsored terrorism with its destruction of Iraq, the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, and the attempted regime change in Syria to name just a few of America’s nefarious activities in the region.

A Brown University study shows the absurdity of Pompeo’s claims.  The study estimates that between 480,000 to 507,000 people were killed in America’s post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.  For the US, some 60,000 troops have lost their lives or been wounded.***

US Destruction of Iraq US Destruction of Iraq

After threatening genocide of the Iranian people, Pompeo told an outright lie as he accused Iran for the catastrophe that is taking place in Yemen:

[The] Iranians are responsible for the starvation of Yemen civilians.****

No one outside of the Western controlled press or among the clueless American populace believes such a claim and knows that the starvation which is taking place in Yemen has been caused by the US’s ally, Saudi Arabia, which America has armed for decades.  It is not the Iranians, but the US which is guilty as an accomplice for the genocide taking place in that misbegotten land.

Yemen Drone Stike Yemen Drone Strike

Not to be outdone by his fellow merchant of death, John Bolton focused his most recent bellicose talk on Latin American regimes that have not fallen in line with the US Empire’s wishes.  He labeled three countries as “the troika of tyranny in this hemisphere – Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua.”** Big Bad John boasted that the three had “finally met [their] match” in the Trump Administration.

Wow, John, you are so tough, but saying that these three hellholes are a “match” for the US is a bit much when it is unlikely that the three combined could even defeat Rhode Island’s National Guard in a pitched battle!

While Bolton ruled out (for now) military intervention, he did say that sanctions would soon be placed on the “troika of tyranny.”  Bolton proclaimed that “Under this administration, we will no longer appease dictators and despots near our shores.”

Yes, by all means, a possible invasion by a Cuban/Venezuelan/Nicaraguan juggernaut rolling up to the shores of south Florida should be a concern for all Americans.  No telling how much damage inflicted and territory conquered the “Latin American Axis” could accomplish!  It is good that perceptive and ever vigilant foreign policy experts like John Bolton keep a watchful eye out for such threats!

These are dangerous and evil men who think nothing of inflicting pain and suffering upon innocent people who have little control over what their nation’s leadership does, just as Americans have little say in the policies and actions of their government.

A global empire attracts personality types like Haley, Pompeo and Bolton.  It needs such sociopaths to provoke others and stir up troubles where there is none to justify its existence.  A more peaceful world will only come about with the demise of the American Empire, not changing the personalities who guide it.

Sadly, for Americans who have to fund it and the peoples of the world who are in its path, until there is an economic collapse and/or a dollar crisis, the American Empire will continue to threaten and, in some instances, carry out those threats led by the likes of Michael Pompeo and John Bolton.

*Tyler Durden, “Iran’s Leadership Must Decide ‘If They Want Their People to Eat’ – Pompeo.”  Zero Hedge. 9 November 2018.

**Alex Gorka, “US Declares War on ‘Troika of Tyranny’ Pushing Them Closer to Russia.”  Strategic Culture Foundation.  7 November 2018.

*** Jason Ditz, “US Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Killed 500,000 People.” Antiwar.com  8 November 2018.

****Durden, “Iran’s Leadership Must Decide.”

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com