In yesterday's post I used the word "wartocracy" (pronounced like "autocracy").Today let's define that word, noting first that the fundamental definition of wartocracy is "the way MOMCOM governs".
Simply put, a wartocracy is a form of government where an elite are in the business of making weapons and all manner of "goods" and "services" that depend on a large military complex in order to financially survive, in order to maintain and increase the wealth of that elite.
Not only that, the vast military complex must "grow" continually to satiate the increasing greed and increasing lust of the wartocracy.
To justify such a vast military complex, the wartocracy must generate fear and wars so that the people who supply the income of the wartocracy, the taxpayers, are "willing" to keep paying the loot.
To successfully perform the part of government that generates fear, wartocracy has to "own" the media to cover up the deceit
, since there is nothing that big to fear "except fear itself", which the wartocracy of MOMCOM uses to cause fear:The Bush administration turned the U.S. military into a global propaganda machine while imposing tough restrictions on journalists seeking to give the public truthful reports about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Associated Press chief executive Tom Curley said Friday.(MOMCOM - A Mean Welfare Queen). As was pointed out yesterday, that baton has now been handed over to "the Obama Administration" of the wartocracy.
In terms of the direction of the wartocracy, nothing has changed except the bit actors in the movie or play we call the onion script.Everything else remains static because even elections cannot solve the problem facing the American people, who are the subjects of the wartocracy.
Some of the wise men who formed our original type of government, a constitutional republic, warned us long ago; and a general who listened to those mentors saw it coming too.
It is here now, is not quite yet in full bloom, but already we are its servants now in some degree, but will become its servants through and through unless we vaccime it.
The next post in this series is here.
Dr Ahmadinejad was right, in his speech to the US last year, the one Obama called offensive and hateful. In his speech, he said the US should have done an intensive investigation into the 911 attack, identified the culprits, and used a small dedicated team to go after the bad guys.
ReplyDeleteHe criticized the US for using the 911 attack as pretext for massive war, in Afghanisrtan and especially in Iraq.
Now we see that a dedicated team of Navy Seals, accompianed by their canine war dog, was able to accomnplish what 10 years of war could not. Cut off the head of the snake. It seems to me, that had we decided on this tactic from the begining, especially since at that time we did have intelligence on where bin Laden was, instead of Bush's tactic of hitting them hard and getting them running, (they then ran to all corners of the globe) we could have wrapped this up sooner, and several trillion dollars cheaper.
But then, our foreign policy is not termined by the president alone, and the senate foreign relations committe has blood on their hands, and has spent us into the poorhouse.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/65/meetings/generaldebate/Portals/1/statements/634208557381562500IR_en.pdf
http://www.newint.org/features/2009/10/01/blowback-extended-version/
More links on http://shadowrag.blogspot.com
It would seem, listening to the ractions to the news that bin Laden has been deep sixed, that here in the US folks are either celebrating or criticizing Obama. i must say, China, Russia, India, Iran are satisfied that Osama is no more, but wonder if the US is gonna keep this up, of if we will learn from our mistakes this time.
Doc A seems to me to be part of a wartocracy. Link
ReplyDeleteAll of the warlords of the earth are. Link
“In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” - George Orwell
ReplyDeleteRE James Madison:
ReplyDelete"Madison's claim on our admiration does not rest on a perfect consistency, any more than it rests on his presidency. He has other virtues .... As a framer and defender of the Constitution he had no peer .... The finest part of Madison's performance as president was his concern for the preserving of the Constitution .... No man could do everything for the country – not even Washington. Madison did more than most, and did some things better than any. That was quite enough." (historian Garry Wills, 2002)