Initially posted at strategic-culture.org:
In contrast to a daily corporation, the firms that manufacture and sell weapons to their government are nearly 100% dependent upon their authorities and its army allies, for their own success; their markets are solely these governments, not individuals (comparable to is the case for regular firms). Consequently, both their authorities will control them, and people companies gained’t have any efficient management over their very own markets, or else those companies will, themselves, control their authorities, and thereby successfully control their markets, by way of the federal government’s overseas insurance policies — not only by way of expanding its army alliances (these companies’ overseas markets), however by way of its designating ‘enemy’ nations that it and its ‘allies’ (those arms-producers’ overseas markets) can then use these weapons towards.
In nations akin to the USA, arms-producers are benefiting and controlled by the country’s billionaires, as an alternative of (as in Russia, for example) benefiting and controlled by the government. These totally profit-driven arms-producers have to have market-nations which might be referred to as ‘allied’ governments, however additionally they have to have some target-nations which are referred to as ‘enemy’ governments, so as to ‘justify’ extra arms-production by these companies, towards which to make use of these weapons. Only in nations the place arms-producers are privately as an alternative of publicly controlled are the government’s overseas polices predominantly managed by the country’s arms-producers. That’s the best way it’s in America.
The primary ‘ally’ of the US is the Saud family, who own the government of Saudi Arabia. As a current debate-brief stated, “The US has been the world’s leading exporter in weapons since 1990 and the biggest customer is Saudi Arabia. The US sold a total of $55.6 billion of weapons worldwide, and in 2017, cleared $18 billion dollars with Saudi Arabia alone.” Beneath Trump, those sales are set to soar, as a result of on 20 Might 2017 “US $350 Billion Arms-Sale to Sauds Cements US-Jihadist Alliance” — notwithstanding now the slaughter in Yemen and the slaughter of Jamal Khashoggi. Yet, Trump talks up his ‘humanitarian’ considerations for the individuals of Venezuela as ‘justification’ for his probably invading Venezuela, and America’s army is getting ready to try this.
The primary and central ‘enemy’ of the US is Russia’s authorities; and all the different ‘enemies’ of America (the spokes of America’s ‘enemy’ wheel) are led by individuals — comparable to Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Viktor Yanukovych, Bashar al-Assad, Salvador Allende, Jacobo Arbenz, and Nicolas Maduro — who are friendly towards Russia. The objective here is to pressure other nations to hitch America’s anti-Russia alliances or else to face the results of a possible invasion or coup by America to overthrow and exchange those leaders. Subsequently, America targets all nations which are/have been pleasant towards Russia, resembling pre-2003 Iraq, and similar to pre-2011 Libya, and corresponding to Syria, and reminiscent of pre-1973 Chile, and resembling post-1979 Iran — all of America’s numerous target-nations, that are the approved targets for America and its ‘allies’ to invade or otherwise regime-change (change from being a target, to turning into as an alternative a new market).
In order for privately managed arms-producers to thrive, there’s just as a lot of a necessity for ‘allies’ as for ’targets’, as a result of with out targets, there may be no approved markets, since every weapon is useless if it has no approved goal towards which it might be used. There consequently must be at the very least one ‘enemy’ for any nation whose arms-production is privately as an alternative of publicly controlled. Both ‘allies’ and ‘enemies’ are wanted, to ensure that America’s arms-makers to continue flourishing.
Against this, in Russia, where every of the arms-producers is majority-controlled by the federal government as an alternative of by personal buyers, every arms-producer exists solely with a purpose to defend the nation, there isn’t a want for any‘enemy’ nations, and the most effective state of affairs for such a authorities is to the contrary: to have as many allies, or consumers of its country’s weapons, as potential (so that it is going to be as protected as attainable), and as few nations as potential which might be enemies. For such a country, there’s no profit in having any enemies. America has publicly been towards Russia ever because the end of World Conflict II, and privately and secretly remains towards Russia even after the Cold Conflict ended on Russia’s aspect in 1991. Whereas the billionaires who management America’s arms-makers revenue from this army competition towards Russia, the controlling interest in all of Russia’s arms-makers is Russia’s authorities, which merely suffers the expense of that competition and would tremendously choose to end that competitors. It’s just a drain on Russia’s treasury. The profit-motive isn’t driving the arms-producers in nations that management their very own arms-makers. The government leads the nation there, principally because the nation’s billionaires — even when they are minority stockholders of the armaments-firms — don’t. And the rationale the billionaires don’t is that the arms-producers in Russia are controlled by the government, not by any personal buyers.
Consequently, in nations that socialize arms-production, ‘humanitarian’ excuses don’t have to be invented with a view to create new ‘enemies’. As an alternative, the aim is for the variety of enemies to be decreased, in order that the nation itself shall be safer. Their arms-producers don’t want always to generate (by lobbying, media-propaganda, and so forth.) approved targets (‘enemies’ resembling Iraq, Syria, and so on.), as a result of such a nation, as this, has designed its system to be pushed for shielding the public’s safety, and not for any buyers’ income. If an armaments-firm, in such a nation, goes out-of-business, that’s solely okay, so long as that nation’s safety isn’t being decreased by ending the firm. The worldwide policy of such a country is totally totally different from that of a rustic through which arms-makers’ income, and never the whole nation’s welfare, is in the driver’s seat relating to all overseas policies.
If arms-makers are being pushed for income, then target-nations are wanted as a way to broaden income so as to serve their buyers. Such a country is run truly for its buyers, not for its public. But when the arms-makers are being driven to serve the federal government as an alternative of to serve personal buyers, the government is controlling the armament-firms. The nation’s safety is the target in such a land, as a result of growing income for private buyers in its weapons-firms is not the company’s goal. Any income to such buyers, are then irrelevant to the government. It’s really sink-or-swim, for every of such a nation’s arms-makers — not socialism-for-the-rich, and capitalism (truly fascism) for the poor, similar to is the case in the USA.
In a nation corresponding to the USA, the fixed want for brand spanking new wars is being continuously pushed by buyers’ needs for increasing both markets and targets. And — since within the arms-making enterprise, all the markets are one’s own authorities, plus all of its allied governments (no vital consumer-business in any way, which is why such companies are basically totally different from the companies in all other kinds of fields)— the government must serve its armaments-firms, as a result of these companies are totally dependent upon the government, and upon its worldwide diplomacy (to increase the sales of its armaments, and thereby to serve the billionaires who management the armaments-firms). So: the federal government there naturally becomes an extension of its main “contractors” or armaments-firms. The politicians know this, though they don’t need to speak publicly about it, as a result of they don’t want the voters to know who is actually within the driver’s seat. They know whom they’re truly serving, which is the billionaires who control the armaments-firms. So: those politicians, no matter they could say in public (“America shouldn’t be the policeman for the world,” and so forth.), all the time truly vote to invade (Iraq, Syria, and so forth.), and to approve the primary stage of any struggle, which is economic sanctions (similar to towards Russia itself, or Iran, or Iraq, or Syria, or Venezuela, and so on.), and it’s all the time allegedly being accomplished “to serve God, mother and country” at house, and “to expand freedom and protect human rights in that dictatorially ruled country” abroad. This is principally the advertising marketing campaign for the house owners of the armaments companies. The profitable politicians in such nations are those that those billionaires help. In such a rustic, it’s virtually unattainable for any politician who is competing for a national office to succeed who isn’t being funded by those billionaires. And, the billionaires’ ‘news’-media help solely such candidates. That’s why there’s virtually no risk for an trustworthy individual to be elected (or appointed( to any national public office in the USA.
If a nation’s sole cause for producing weapons is as a way to shield the public — a public function — then there isn’t any purpose for the government to lie in order to demonize overseas leaders resembling Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, Salvador Allende, Viktor Yanukovych, and Nicolas Maduro. And this has nothing by any means to do with how dangerous (or good) the demonized leader truly is.
Why does the US authorities demonize these individuals, while simultaneously serving (if not truly installing) barbaric dictators comparable to King Saud, Augusto Pinochet, Castillo Armas, and the Shah? The publicly said causes are all the time ‘humanitarian’ (when not ‘national defense’ — and sometimes, as in 2003 Iraq — both directly). The alleged function is to ‘bring democracy to the people there’, and to ‘protect human rights, which are being violated’ by ‘the dictator’ — however it’s truly to be able to make suckers out of their nation’s personal population, in order to serve the billionaires whose revenue can’t be boosted in another method than to show ‘enemies’ (targets) into ‘allies’ (markets) — to overcome these ‘enemies’. This is only a advertising campaign, and the voters will not be the shoppers of these merchandise, however they’re as an alternative merely the gulls who should be fooled in order for those income to maintain rolling in, to the (often) offshore accounts of those billionaires. This is not the kind of socialism during which the federal government controls the financial system, however as an alternative the kind of financial system through which the financial system — truly the billionaires who management the armaments-firms — control the federal government. That is why it’s “socialism for the rich and capitalism for everybody else.” (The term “fascism” can be used for that.)
That is the New America. And here is the New America Basis, which is among the many ‘non-profit’ PR arms of this new America. (That one represents mainly Democratic Get together billionaires. Here is one that as an alternative represents primarily Republican Celebration billionaires.) These are taxpayer-subsidized public relations businesses for their businesses. These people are exceptionally gifted businesspeople, as a result of they deeply perceive methods to idiot the public, they usually understand that the general public never learns and so history simply keeps repeating itself, similar to in 1953 Iran, after which in 1954 Guatemala, and 1973 Chile, and 2003 Iraq, and 2019 Venezuela, and so many others, advert nauseum. And it goes on and on, for many years if not ceaselessly.
However how can the world be shielded from such nations? If there’s not widespread public recognition that ‘permanent war for perpetual peace’ is a vicious lie, then can there be another option to do it? Perhaps not. Apparently, constant mendacity by the government and by its (i.e., by its billionaires’) media — and by all of its profitable national politicians — is required in any such country. This seems to be the one effective solution to control the public in such a rustic; and, if the public there aren’t deceived, then the arms-firms’ control over the government gained’t even be potential. So, relating to overseas insurance policies, the lying in such a country is constant — particularly about overseas affairs.
For instance, that explains the beautiful findings, in the current research by a media-watchdog group, that “Zero Percent of Elite Commentators Oppose Regime Change in Venezuela”. Having something like this occur after People have been lied into invading Iraq in 2003, is proof that (and it explains why) the general public by no means learns. This is the best way the system has been designed to perform, siphoning off the society’s wealth into billionaires’ — largely offshore — accounts. The system is actually set as much as operate that method. And the system’s house owners (and their media) name this ‘democracy’, and are peddling that ‘democracy’ to the rest of the world.
This can be a very profitable trick, as a result of — a minimum of till now — the public never learns. (In fact, the system itself is about up in order that they gained’t.) The general public never learns that the precise enemy is the domestic aristocracy itself. However one main American journal lately made enjoyable of this by headlining “In Billionaires Is the Preservation of the World” praising them as “nature’s own life-preserver” and shutting by “With life itself depending on it, how do we determine which billionaires to kiss up to?” The enemy is inside, however it’s no joke, and (as Trump makes so clear) ‘aliens’ get the blame, whereas the domestic aristocracy just get the cash.
One of these racket has worked that method for hundreds of years, and yet it has all the time remained “Top Secret,” or (at the least) “Confidential” or and so forth.; but, anyway, very personal — and never acknowledged in their ‘news’-media, but as an alternative publicly denied (although, sometimes, additionally joked-about).
A more-serious phrase for this is “the Deep State.”