U.S. Military: Good or bad?

Strange, dichotomized, simplistic question, I know. But hear me out:

As Pompeo heads to North Korea, and Trump’s heart to heart with Putin gets set for July 14th, where are we in the business of business that is Amerika, the great “exceptional” nation that puts its military before all else? Yep! Amurrika, this fat, ego-ridden, dominating — and now failing, flailing — hyperpower that long ago substituted a military economy for a real one.

And yet — and here’s the zinger — it may be that, were it not for the military, Trump might not have run for president! And here, I can just hear never-Trumpers say, “Really? Good!” But wait. That’s not where I’m going with this train of thought.

Where did I get this idea? Several places (including Jerome Corsi and David Wilcock; can you imagine two more disparate sources?). The scuttlebutt is that military brass realized that corrupt Hillary Clinton was a Deep State operative hell bent on One World Order globalism (and some say, nuclear war), and that had she been elected, the military had decided to stage a coup! True? Who knows. But if true, then with Trump as president, the take down of the Deep State (the Cabal, the Shadow Government, the Illuminati) can be done legally. 

In other words, in this scenario, Trump is not only surrounded by the military, but the military has his back as President, and he is consciously working as the point man for a plan that was conceived and set in motion decades (?) ago by “the Alliance” (including the military), to rid this country of the corruption that has infested it at least since World War II.

In other words, in this plan, the military and Trump are the good guys.

But then, you might ask, isn’t a major aspect of the corruption military? Don’t, for example, weapons manufacturers stocks go up when war is declared and down when war is avoided

Here we go, back to my original point of view, decrying the inexorably increasing militarization of our economy and its continuous corrosive tsunami of destruction upon the entire globe, including ourselves.

So I ask: as long as the military lives on, then what would it take to convert the military to life-saving rather than life-destroying objectives and programs? Otherwise known as “swords into plowshares?” For example, addressing climate change: fighting fires, floods, saving victims, shoring up shorelines, etc. For example, addressing road and infrastructure repair: what better than the U.S. military to oversee and help man large building projects? For example, turning vast Big Ag conglomerates into tiny permaculture farms, owned and operated by locals (including military veterans) who joined the military because they want to do good work that helps people and planet rather than hurts them. On and on. So much of our “economy” is tied up in military projects that we have no room or time for anything else. But if we just take all those soldiers who, really, would rather stay home and do good than go to faraway lands to kill and be killed, and offered them work that heals rather than hurts. What would happen then? 

What would happen if we converted weapons manufacturers into tiny house manufacturers, batteries for solar power, windmills, other small, appropriate technology? On and on, I don’t have the vision, but I know plenty of other people do.

Meanwhile, please, let us finally look up from our la-la land distractions and pay attention to just what sucks up 60% of hard-earned U.S. taxes. 

The United States of Terror

And check out this new book, receiving rave reviews, by a scholar/activist who writes from deep experience. I plan to order it today.


The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert

Ron Ridenour’s book, The Russian Peace Threat: Pentagon on Alert, a true historical page-turner, is destined to endure and inform future readers, writers and researchers about both what has been reported—mainly malicious propaganda—and what truly took place in the one hundred years from the 1917 Russian Revolution until the eruption of the distinct harbingers of the collapse of the US empire in the early twenty-first century.

Events often just seem to happen, caught up in the swirl of history. But still, we try to interpret them and to understand. And then, in many cases, take a stand for or against. Understanding is like discovering a new world, like converting to a new faith. Revolt invades your life and everything is different from what it once was. Ridenour’s book helps us along the way to first remembering the historical facts so that we can then understand. His new work documents clearly facts about the early years of the Soviet Union’s relations with the West, its difficult steps toward socio-political maturity and Communism, and its enormous sacrifices along the way: its defeat of Western intervention during the revolutionary and civil war period; its regulation of state economic planning and the reforms required for the industrialization of the nation; its defeat of the German Nazi military juggernaut at the gates of Russia’s major cities and the coup de grace in the ferocious battle in Stalingrad, defeating German invaders and crushing Nazi Germany before the USA even entered the war; and finally the arduous salvation of Russia after the collapse of the USSR under US post-WWII economic firepower and the most treacherous anti-Russian policies since the early 1900s.

Those Western policies continue to determine US-Russian relations today. Throughout this long work Ridenour recalls and clarifies diverse significant historical details, obscured by time and by Western propaganda, facts that are so easily forgotten or that were never learned: such ignored truths as the importance of the USSR in the defeat of Japan in WWII and the timing of the US use of the atomic bomb in Japan. Not many people are aware of the extent of the destruction of many Japanese cities which the author details here. He points out that the Soviet Union kept its word to help the United States by its intervention against Japan, the decisive reason why Japan was defeated even before the atomic bombs fell. A stunning but little known fact is that in response to the Russians’ sacrifice the Anglo-American leaders—first Churchill and later Truman— were hatching Operation Unthinkable and Operation Pincher to launch a surprise war against Soviet forces in Europe. These military plots included the potential use of nuclear bombs. This is a book that no well-informed Western reader should be without, especially those inhabiting the homeland of the new empire, the dangerously brainwashed United States.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to U.S. Military: Good or bad?

  1. Christopher Crockett says:

    Mr. Ridenour’s book sounds just *fascinating*, Anne.

    And i’m sure that it’s going to be a real late night page-turner, one destined to inform all readers about what truly took place, away back en ces temps là.

    Why, he even “points out that the Soviet Union kept its word to help the United States by its intervention against Japan, the decisive [SIC] reason why Japan was defeated even before the atomic bombs fell.”

    And here I’ve been deluding myself into thinking for decades and decades that the date of the Hiroshima bombing (August 6, 1945) might possibly have had something to do with the date of the USSR’s declaration of war on Japan (August 8, 1945).

    When it must have been driven by the Soviets’ sincere desire to help the United States.

    Silly me.

    What do the Stars say?

    Christopher

    P.s. Don’t forget to censor all comments that you might find embarrassing to any of your multiple fantasies. After all, it *is* “your” blog.

    • Ann Kreilkamp says:

      I wonder about the deep source of your habit of sarcasm. But that’s “your” attitude, not mine — with the exception of this reply to your comment.

  2. Christopher Crockett says:

    Good Question, Anne.

    I suppose that my “habit of sarcasm” is a somewhat bewilder response to your on-going (and, alas, increasingly quite bizarre and troubling) fantasizing about any number of issues –from the Nefarious Hillary’s Deep State Pizzagate shenanigans right through to your ludicrously pious and Hagiographic view of St. Vladimir and beyond (where will the political sophistication of my Dead Cat lead us to next? one wonders).

    Indeed, i’m afraid that Sarcasm is just my Default Response to perceived Absurdity –whether the latter is propagated by Bloviating Billionaire conmen or aging Californiac yuppies with Egos as Big as All Out Doors, trying to make “sense” out of their life when nearing a terminal stage in it (a goal which i can most definitely sympathize with and support, i assure you [WITHOUT ANY “Sarcasm”]).

    It is also the only fitting response which i can think of to repeated acts of Hypocrisy (best delete this “reply” just to be on the Safe Side).

    i have also been known to laugh at Train Wrecks, whenever i have been fortunate enough to have witnessed them.

    c

  3. Christopher Crockett says:

    i just realized that i have misspelled your name (twice), Ann.

    Totally unintentional, i assure you.

    Sorry.

    c

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *