[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God! The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’ The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED Status: Not Logged In; Sign In politics and politicians See other politics and politicians Articles Title: Conservative Warmongers Source: Lew Rockwell URL Source: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/conservative-warmongers/ Published: Mar 26, 2015 Author: Laurence M. Vance Post Date: 2015-03-27 10:22:37 by Deckard Keywords: None Views: 1075 Comments: 10 Or do I repeat myself. Thank you Ryan, for your very detailed blog post on defense spending and the wonderful graphs you created. What this means is that every dollar sent to the Heritage Foundation is a dollar sent to promote war. It also means that any Republican presidential candidate (official or unofficial), and the more “conservative” the worst, who calls for more defense spending is a bloodthirsty warmonger himself or is willing to pretend that he is to get the votes of bloodthirsty warmongers, no matter what his name. I stand by every word of what I wrote back in 2009: The very heart and soul of conservatism is war. Patriotism, Americanism, and being a real conservative are now equated with support for war, torture, and militarism. 7:31 pm on March 26, 2015 ******* Time reports that Rand Paul has come out in favor of a sizable boost to defense spending, [U]nder Paul’s new plan, the Pentagon will see its budget authority swell by $76.5 billion to $696,776,000,000 in fiscal year 2016.[1] Paul, positioning himself for a run in the presidential primaries, is echoing his fellow republicans who seem to be under the impression that defense spending is an endangered species in Washington, DC. In fact, in January, the always-hawkish Heritage foundation proposed new increases to the defense budget and claimed that “the state of the U.S. military continues to degrade due to recent spending decisions. The several years of uncertainty in the defense budget, the unprioritized cuts, and the magnitude and pace of the reductions have led to a weaker and smaller force today.” Any serious look at defense spending, however, reveals that spending is basically on a par with spending levels (in real terms) seen during the height of the Vietnam War and during the Reagan military buildup. To claim that defense spending now is experiencing cuts of a large magnitude is disingenuous and requires quite a few splitting of hairs to come up with the number necessary to make the case. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: Deckard (#0) Hillary Clinton is also a war mongering blood soaked whore. Pericles  posted on  2015-03-27   11:08:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: Deckard (#0) Patriotism, Americanism, and being a real conservative are now equated with support for war, torture, and militarism. We face the identical problem that the Greeks, Romans, English, Spanish and others before us faced. We became the greatest empire of our time through war. We won wars and acquired territory, and that made us feared and cowered to by those we conquered, admired and feared by others who saw our strength, and very rich relative to what we were. Before we became a great empire, we built up the internal strength that eventually uncoiled to grab and hold an empire, but that internal strength came on the back of a lot of hard, grinding work of people who never in their lifetimes had much. That went on for generations. People had what they needed, and a small excess. They were secure, and hardworking, but they did not live grandly because they could not. They could not, because it takes a lot of resources for people to live securely and well. To live GRANDLY requires the extraction of resoruces, reducing others, so that some can live better than can be sustained by all. This is the difference between the Yankee traders and farmers, who were correct, little middle class people, secure but without wealth, and the Southern grandees, who lived large lives BECAUSE they were able to exploit mass numbers of slaves who had nothing. After World War II, the US found itself with an Empire. That Empire gave us prestige, status, control of the flow of resources, and the ability to make our currency the world standard. The people who won that war, at home and abroad, came out of a middle class country where few lived grandly, where most had lived like the Yankee farmers and traders of old. Correctly, with some savings, with security wrought of hard work, but without any excess for grandeur. With a world empire, that changed. Control of the money supply and the oil supply, and the de facto power to allow governments to live or to die, the plantation owner's portion flowed into the US. We lived much more grandly than before (though disfavored ones fell further, relatively). The new generations became accustomed to the excess flow from empire, not earned by work but earned by status. The identical thing happened to the Spanish, British, Romans, Greeks - all imperialists. Militaristic male bonding is fun, especially when your empire is SO dominant that the real chances of having to fight a lot and get killed are low. SOME of that allows for there to be great tales of heroism, which just makes the lifestyle more glamorous. So you end up with generations of warriors and wannabee warriors, and national epics and songs (and today, films) that glorify the nation, war, all of it. To maintain the grandeur and the military culture requires militarism, and it becomes a "national interest" to maintain the "lord of the plantation" status (even if it is immoral and evil, reposing on force). A sense of "divine right" creeps in: after all, we always win, right. Arrogance and carelessness in military affairs comes in too. "We've always won" (because of economics, not native superiority), but warrior cultures never see that themselves. They always think it's them. Thus you have Greek phalanges marching to get slaughtered by Romans, Roman legions getting themselves slaughtered by Gauls and Persians and Goths, because the invincibility was believed, but was far from the truth. You have the British charging to death up Bunker Hill, riding the Light Brigade into the guns, and dying in waves on the wire at the Somme. You have the Invicible Armada sailing to its doom in a hurricane, and the "invincible" Spanish tercios being shot to pieces at Rocroi by French musketeers - spearmen against gunpowder. And you have the Americans charging to a draw in Korea, a loss in Vietnam, a draw in Kuwait, and an eventual loss in Iraq and Afghanistan. And all the while, the expense of empire in blood and treasure creeps up, until it makes it no longer possible to even live the frugal middle class life that once made each country great: the burden of empire becomes too high, and the cancerous empire becomes DEPENDENT on those flows of tribute and power to sustain even its internal standard of living. Then the rest of the world gets tired of deferring and stops, and without the flow of money, the old empire cannot keep its own forces in the field long enough to beat it back into line. The world has seen it defeated in the field a few times and knows that it isn't really invincible, and the imperials themselves have divided into a fat domestic master class, that won't risk itself fighting, and a poor class of peasant whose best opportunity to rise is to become a liveried mercenary of the Empire, like the British Redcoats then and the American military today. It's a sorry state of degredation. A slow burn to the bottom. The only way to hold men back from it is by a superior permanent law that doesn't let them do it - the law of God. But men as a group never follow the law of God when it isn't to their advantage. They always change the law (or pretend it has changed) to justify their imperial killings. And then they lose their empires and fall. And in the aftermath, the post imperial societies are poorer and more degraded than the non-imperial societies or the less successful empires. One need only look at Europe. The first great Empire of Europe was the Greeks. Greece never recovered from empire and has been a backwards and poor place ever since. The greatest of all European empires, for the longest time, was Rome. The Italians, though, have been among the poorest, most divided and least impressive people since. Good art and food? Sure. But government and ability to do anything or defend themselves? No. Then came the great Spanish Empire. Spain gained a continent, and from the militarism and inflation touched off by their own excess, emptied out their country of soldiers - Latin America gained their vigor while Spain languished and ultimately became a permanent backwater nation, like Greece and Italy. See the pattern? For awhile three would-be world Empires contended: Germany, France and England. Of these, the Germans were the least successful, and were forced by the other two (and by Russia and America) to remain inside of their borders, able to invest only in themselves). And they became the greatest economic power with the most products and industry BECAUSE they were unsuccessful at Empire. France found a middling place, restrained by the English from becoming THE empire. And so the French were forced to reinvest in themselves to a middling degree, more than the English, less than the Germans. And today, France is the number two power. Not as great as Germany, but greater than England. England was the victorious empire that age. And as a result, the English severely divided into an upper class of plantation operators, and a lower class of servants or unemployed. The English despise EACH OTHER along these lines far more than the French or Germans. They strained to capture and hold their empire, they were eventually defeated by bankruptcy and exhaustion, and England fell to the third rank of European nations, behind Germany and France, and unable to direct European politics. There was a point in the early 1980s where the UK economy was smaller than Italy's. How the mighty are fallen. Empires, once they fall, stay fallen. Greece was the first great empire of Europe. It fell and remained one of the least of nations ever since. Italy will always be a second-rate nation until the end because of the exhaustion of Empire. Spain will be down there with them. And England? Riven with internal class disgust, unable to compete economically with France or Germany, snobbish among themselves, the English are losing their own country to immigrants. (So is the rest of Europe, to be sure, but the English are particularly unable to put up any resistance to it because they hate each other. Americans are not far off this.) Russia was never anything BUT a military empire. They've still got all that land, and big (bad) armed forces to hold it. They make their money pulling things out of the ground. They invent nothing, produce nothing and never did invest anything in themselves. They look at each other, and people, as degree of peasants or soldiers to be commanded, and to be reduced to loyalty to higher ideals. And they are able to rule over vast wastelands and broken tribes, but go no higher. America should have known better, but the internal exploitation of slavery and the mindset of utter disregard for labor that entails, plus British arrogance, plus the experience of imperial victory over lots of weak local enemies like Indians and Mexicans, gave the Americans a certain set of burdens. If they could overcome the bad lessons of these things and take full advantage of the great prosperity of their land, and reinvest in their own country and people like the Germans were forced to, we could continue to soar above the world. But it's so much EASIER, in the short term, to be an empire and gain excess wealth through privilege and currency and force than to gain it through work and reinvestment at modest rates of return. We succumbed to the temptation. Now we're killing ourselves off internally and being replaced in our own land, following the English in their model of rise AND decay. AND we hate each other internally like the English, and have their class snobbery. AND we've got a world empire whose benefits let us live past our means, but that gradually closes in on us like a noose around our neck. This pattern is visible all across history. Americans don't like history, so we don't realize we're repeating it. We see the collosseum and we see grandeur. We don't seem to notice that all of those Roman things are ruins. We don't seem to realize that, in the end, the Romans and British LOST. They lost everything. They FAILED as empires. Their empires exhausted and destroyed their people, and they never got up again. America is addicted to Empire. If we don't turn back we will turn into a land like Greece, Italy, Spain and Birmingham: backwards places of poorish people riven with division and crime, with no hope of ever again taking the first rate of nations BECAUSE our people were so spoiled by past empire that they THINK themselves great, but are IN FACT among the poorer, shabbier, stupider, less educated, more violent, more ignorant and crude people. And once our military no longer holds sway - just as the Greek, Roman, Spanish and British military hold sway, we sink back into being slum-dwelling yobs for the next ten centuries, and answer to our economic superiors in countries like Germany and France and Japan, and Switzerland and Luxembourg and Belgium and Holland, where they reinvest in themselves...because they had to...because they weren't winners in the imperial game. Winning the imperial game was actually winning the race to become the top heroin addict. We won the turf of suicide, we got addicted, WE got the drugs and the others didn't. And now we get to spin into the Greek, Italian, Spanish and English sewer and be second-rate, poor halfwits, while other people who HAVE to be brighter and better intellectually, rise above us, BECAUSE they have been deprived of the easier, shittier route of being conquerors. The Japanese and Germans are superior industrialists BECAUSE they lost the war. We are losing in the intellectual game BECAUSE we won the war. France is a more prosperous and intelligent place than England BECAUSE the English bested the French more often than the reverse. The English won shitholes in Africa, and we won the power to ride herd over poppy fields in Afghanistan. Meanwhile the French, Germans, Japanese and Hindus study machines, engineering and technology, and reinvest in their own countries, and emerge, man for man, superior and more secure than Americans. Americans have more soldiers...which they cannot USE on the real battlefields, because you do not win intellectual and economic wars with Marines. Marines are, rather, a parasite that you pay for with the monies of intellect and economic activity. Empire lets us gain more than we generate internally. But the cost of holding onto that Empire exceeds the gains, over time. And Empire renders the imperial nation backwards and stupid relative to the commercial, internally investing powers. Who are the greater mathematicians and engineers today, the English or the Hindus, their former colonial subjects? The Hindus of course. The Hindus concede nothing in any area to the English. They were once ruled by the English, but they drove the English out - and they know it. And they are superior intellectually to the English. People hire Hindus in England to run things. The Hindus do not hire the English, because there are millions of poor earnest people in India who are smarter and better at everything that anybody in England. That's what Empire does to you: it turns your sons into actual killers, who then join all killers in Hell at final judgment, it earns the ultimate damnation of God, and it leaves your people dumber, poorer and stupider than other people, but with a legacy of arrogance that does not even allow them to really come to grips with their own intellectual inferiority and work hard enough to DO anything about it. Empires are built by murdering people in large numbers. God condemned murder categorically, and he never made an exception for building empires. Imperial generals and soldiers virtually all go to hell. So, what do you WIN by building a military empire? Damnation for most of your people in the afterlife, and a future of Greek poverty and Italian corruption on the earth. Bitter fruit. America needs to bring home its troops and slash the armed forces by 75%. We need to get out of the business of empire, if we love our children and our country. Alas, we're addicted. Empire is heroin. We're addicted, and the addiction will kill us, just like addiction to slavery rendered the South permanently in the second rank. If your country and greatness repose on killing people to get and hold it, you're pretty much dead, because God damns murderers, and he didn't make any exception for governments. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-27   11:21:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: Vicomte13 (#2) ...We lived much more grandly than before (though disfavored ones fell further, relatively)... Very good post sir, you put a lot of thought into each post you write and each one is well worth the read. It seems that one aspect of empire is what Kevin Phillips refers to as "financialization" of the economy, where the banking segment becomes paramount. We have an economy based upon FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate); while the actual fires in the hearths and furnaces of many of our factories and mills have gone cold. Manufacturing is the disfavored one you speak of, and like Rome our ports suffer from Ostia-perosis, ports that function to import the produce of empire. The Roman yeoman farmer was reduced to a landless peasant on the dole; and then to a serf during the days of imperial glory. The coveting of Naboth's vineyard, and acting upon that envy, is the path to destruction. nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-03-27   14:50:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: Vicomte13 (#2) The problem we face is twofold. First, if we were going to 'get out' then when the Berlin wall came down was the time to do it. We should have disengaged then. But we did not for two reasons. The fall of the Soviet empire actually made things more dangerous in the world and we eventually got sucked into the ME. Not just because we had energy interests there at the time, but because the barbarians wanted their empire back (the Muslims). That brings us to the second point. Disengaging while, well, engaged leads to worse consequences. If that is the way for the USA, to disengage, in the areas of the world where we are losing lives and fighting then it must be done orderly. A full and immediate withdrawl causes more wars and more loss of American lives. To top this off, the US must define what it is willing to fight for and WIN. No more half assed actions...we go in when it is justified for us to do so and we WIN. That is, from an old Soldier's perspective, the only reason we have a military. Americans should not be sitting on FOBs occupying waiting for the next road side IED to take off our comrade's arm or leg or take his/her life. A lot of people downplay the works of Carl von Clausewitz. He is overused on powerpoint slides and such. But his wisest words came when he drew a picture of a triangle and opined war is futile unless the government, military and most importantly the people are united for the cause and the cause is just. Lastly, you would cut the military by 75%. I would not do that so fast if we are disengaging so quickly. The barbarians are still marching and won't stop until they reach our gates. We would then have to consider what tyranny would fill the void left over. For us to disengage everywhere over a short period of time, we do assume a lot of risk; and our good intentions could make a turn for the worst. Good intentions sometimes leads to greater evils. "For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22) redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-27   15:12:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: nativist nationalist (#3) The coveting of Naboth's vineyard, and acting upon that envy, is the path to destruction. Good analogy. "For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22) redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-27   15:13:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: redleghunter (#4) (Edited) To answer what you said would require a long and serious discussion. On the one hand, given that I'm not the President, or a Senator or Congressman, or cabinet Secretary, or anybody of note, nothing I say or thing on the subject makes any difference at all. So it's truly the definition of "waste of time" for me to argue earnestly for a grand strategy that has zero chance of ever happening. On the other hand, my assessment of "zero chance" is not really true. It is possible, however unlikely, that I could frame arguments in a way that was so logical, so unimpeachable and so reasonable, that virtually anybody reading them would say "Yes, that's true", and thus persuaded, could begin to speak together with one voice. And that unified political voice could change the world, by causing elected officials to hear it and either be persuaded themselves or fearful of getting in the way. It's POSSIBLE, but it doesn't seem very likely. So I think I'm going to spare the time and not argue this one through just yet, and return this evening "Through the Veil" to see what else will be revealed to lie beyond it. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-27   20:29:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: nativist nationalist, Vicomte13 (#3) The Roman yeoman farmer was reduced to a landless peasant on the dole; You say reduced, I say elevated. Don't presume to anachronistically apply what you view as progress on to those of the past. Farmers of that era - except for a minimal few - were subsistence farmers who barely grew enough to feed their families and the land had to be divided every generation as an inheritance and dowery. Being given free food and other bonuses and living on the imperial treasures that was conquered would have seemed like the good life for nearly every Roman. Pericles  posted on  2015-03-28   9:39:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#4) (Edited) First, if we were going to 'get out' then when the Berlin wall came down was the time to do it. We should have disengaged then. But we did not for two reasons. The fall of the Soviet empire actually made things more dangerous in the world and we eventually got sucked into the ME. Not just because we had energy interests there at the time, but because the barbarians wanted their empire back (the Muslims). 2 reasons redleghunter's assessment is wrong. 1) NATO fought 2 wars to install Islamic majority countries in Europe. So this idea NATO was kept around to fight Muslims is laughable. If anything, NATO fears Orthodox Christian unity in Europe would emerge after the fall of the USSR. 2) The end of the Cold War would be a loss of business for military manufacturers as well as those civilians/diplomats in the foreign policy business. Working for NATO in Brussels is probably a sweet job for thousands of connected people. Pericles  posted on  2015-03-28   9:43:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: Pericles (#1) Hillary Clinton is also a war mongering blood soaked whore. http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/BODIES.html “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.â€� CZ82  posted on  2015-03-28   9:55:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: Pericles (#8) Did I say we kept NATO around to fight Muslims? No. NATO has little to do with US forces in the ME. That is primarily a CENTCOM mission. "For the Lord is our Judge, The Lord is our Lawgiver, The Lord is our King; He will save us" (Isaiah 33:22) redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-29   0:07:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com