Tuesday, December 31, 2013

A Tale of Coup Cities - 7

Regular readers know that in this series we have been doing an "autopsy", a forensic autopsy, using some facts and some common sense.

In so doing, we have learned that it does not take much effort to comprehend the reality of an ideological policy coup (which has clearly taken place in the United States).

However, it does take quite a bit more effort to discern exactly when that coup began.

That is because it did not happen all at once, rather, it happened piecemeal, and in fact that coup is still in progress.

This is just to say that the coup has not been completed, so, in today's post we will follow some money, your money, my money, and our fellow citizens' money, in the form of our tax dollars.

That is, we will use the technique of "follow the money" as one dynamic of the autopsy, but we may just throw in some of "that other technique" too, which is "follow the immunity."

Further, we may even throw in a new technique "follow the impunity."

Thus, in this series, our autopsy of national events will look at money, immunity, and impunity to discern the type of coup that has taken place, and then point to a source, that is, point to the perpetrators of the coup.

But, before we continue on with doing that, let's review some of the autopsy techniques and results up until this post.

The modus operandi of this autopsy up until this post has been to take certain traditional American values (e.g. Constitution, law, foreign policy, environment), determine what position government takes on them now, and compare that to historical positions the government has taken.

In the first post of this series, we analyzed certain events in the sense of national direction, observing the trend of the people to say that we as a nation are going in an uncharacteristic, wrong direction (A Tale of Coup Cities).

In the second post of this series, we noted public statements by a General who was told specifically by Pentagon Officials that no one was going to tell them what to do, which that General concluded was the essence of a coup (A Tale of Coup Cities - 2).

In the third post of this series, we noted that the definition of a "coup d'état" is "a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force", and then quoted a prior cabinet member saying that he observed changes which were tantamount to that definition (A Tale of Coup Cities - 3).

In the fourth post of this series, we noted the total change in the behavior of the military NSA with regard to its world-view as to spying on Americans, and how that had changed as much as night and day, i.e., had completely changed (A Tale of Coup Cities - 4).

In the fifth post of this series,  we took a look at the notion of "follow the immunity", and linked to a post (Follow The Immunity) which considered that notion by noting who was "too big to jail" even for committing wrongs such as torture, which reflected the essence of a coup, in the sense that torture had long been considered to be a crime in our nation.

But, we went beyond that example, noting that a certain complete nation was immune from our accountability, even for its taking a part in 9/11 (A Tale of Coup Cities - 5).

In the sixth post of this series we contemplated three events that could be considered as evidence and indications as to when the coup began, or at least when it intensified or progressed (A Tale of Coup Cities - 6).

As to following the money, following the immunity, and following the impunity as methods for detecting symptoms of a coup, let's begin by taking a look at the landscape of 1998 as portrayed by a book of that time:
This book doesn't read like a polemic, but the sheer weight of its facts makes it one: we are spending $250 billion a year on defense, we don't know why and it's not enough. It is the kind of book that leaves a reader agitated and indignant, and should by all rights ignite an urgent national debate. Why, to cite one recent example, did Congress have a knockdown battle over $1 billion in Federal funding for more teachers, yet add more than $9 billion in ''emergency'' defense spending with hardly a peep of public discussion?

William Greider, best known as the journalist to whom David A. Stockman, the first Reagan Administration's budget director, bared his soul, and the author of books on the Federal Reserve and global capitalism, begins ''Fortress America'' by wondering what happened to the ''peace dividend'' -- capital freed from military spending by the collapse of the Soviet threat. After touring our military establishment, he concludes not only that there hasn't been one, but that our ''vast arsenal will become increasingly incoherent and hollow -- mismatched against the new global realities.''
(Tanks and Planes. Cheap. Barely Used, reviewing "Fortress America"; cf. Fortress America excerpts). Way back in 1998 the public was outraged at the spending of a mere $250 billion a year on warmongering?!

Today, some 15 years later, the budget is close to 4 times that amount, especially if you consider the cost of vast spy networks now used to spy on innocent Americans (Homeland Security Happy Daze - 2).

This totalitarianism was not likely foreseen by the author of "Fortress America", as a possibility, or perhaps, even as a probability:
Fortress America remains mobilized to fight the big one but justifies itself now with vague threat scenarios that envision fighting two wars at once, twin regional conflicts that will be smaller in scale but simultaneous. Instead of a robust debate over new priorities or skeptical questioning of these fanciful premises, the political elites in both parties have settled into denial and drift - a status quo that argues only over smaller matters, like which new weapon systems to fund and where they will be built. Defense spending, as one strategic analyst put it, has become "the new third rail of American politics." Most politicians are afraid to touch it.

It seems improbable that Americans will wish to spend more on a peacetime mobilization, not when federal spending is being cut for nearly everything else. Indeed, the public is inclined right now to stand clear of foreign engagements, especially ones that might involve American casualties. Despite the official projections, most analysts expect defense spending to remain flat or even decline further.

But unwilling or unable to adapt to the new circumstances, the armed forces and their allied manufacturers are proceeding with ambitious plans based on the assumption that the reduction in defense spending is only temporary and that Pentagon budgets will soon begin rising robustly again. (The Clinton administration assumes the same: its five-year projections call for another $30 billion and a 40 percent increase in the procurement budget, while Republicans seek even more.)

Until more money arrives, the defense apparatus is literally feeding on its own parts, pinching this and that, scrimping here and there, in order to keep the same Cold War force structure in place and the same lineup of new weapons moving through the pipeline of development. During the Cold War era, the military institution acquired a reflexive appetite for growth that it's now unwilling to give up. Instead, it lumbers toward a self-induced crisis of malnourishment, as when an addict's starving body eats its own liver.

Some smart people, in and out of the Pentagon, see what's coming and have proposed various blueprints for fundamental restructuring and drastic reduction. Radical alternatives are shrugged off by political and military leaders, however, not to mention the defense industry. It is not necessary to study the mind-numbing budget projections to see the problem. The outlines are visible in the routine facts of military life, the daily burden of maintaining the best and biggest army, navy, and air force in the world.
(Fortress America, excerpts; emphasis added). The writing was on the wall for a military that was getting what was considered to be an excessive $250 billion for its annual budget.

But something happened to change all that, something happened to quadruple the military budget within a relatively short amount of time.

That "something" was 9/11,  and combined with certain foreign relationships, it was said to have "changed everything", according to the official propaganda scripts (Fighting Terrorism For 200 Years - 4).

It is reasonable, when considering before and after comparisons on issue after issue in this autopsy, to conclude that the evidence points to a coup having taken place incrementally over time.

And that the coup is still in progress at this date (cf. American Feudalism).

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

Conspiracy Theory
(Nick Jonas & The Administration)

White Rabbit
(Jefferson Airplane)

No comments:

Post a Comment