War Is a Certainty

International Man ^ | March 17, 2014 | Jeff Thomas

[DJ Taylor]

Recently, an associate offered the following observation with regard to the likelihood of war in the immediate future:

“The big guys like to play chess with the world. It's the biggest game. The bankers need ups and downs and wars to make money. The military needs wars to exist. The politicians need both to exist.”

Whilst he was reiterating a concept we have discussed on many occasions, it occurred to me that I have never seen the subject defined so succinctly, nor so informatively.

Let’s break it down:

The bankers need ups and downs and wars to make money

Just as bankers increase their profit as a result of upward and downward economic fluctuations, so, too, do they benefit from war. It is not unusual for a given bank to finance those who would create armed conflict, and indeed, they sometimes bankroll both sides. Whilst banks have other means of making money, war is often more profitable than conventional banking.

The military needs war

The military-industrial complex is in the business of selling armaments to governments. Although armament sales may tick over nicely in peace time, they boom in war time. Therefore, any armament supplier will benefit from war. It matters little whether it is an all-out war or a series of smaller ventures. The object is sales.

The politicians need both banks and war

This is true in the sense that politicians need both bankers and an active military to thrive. Political campaigns depend upon funding. Banks and armament suppliers have long been a major source of campaign funds for candidates of the primary political parties. (If each party is well-paid before the election, favourable treatment towards banks and armament suppliers is assured, regardless of which party wins an election.)

[Toucan Dance]

Not naive. Realistic. Very few people are that mentally ill and still able to hold responsible jobs.

[Toucan Dance]

There aren’t many Hitlers around, and I doubt that our poster friend truly holds that viewpoint either.

[Fear The People]

It’s not that anybody needs it, but it is inevitable.

I believe that it is more due to the fact that humans as biological organism, are ‘governed’ by the fractal nature of the logistic growth equation.

Just as stock markets may be described by fractal algorithms (and even possibly predicted - if you are professor James Simon); human activity is as well.

We are forever destined to repeat the economic cycles as well as the cycle of warfare and disease. It has always happened this way and possibly always will.

What I would suggest we change is the caste of the casualties. Usually, our wise and fearless leaders engage in the chess game of global politics and our hapless children are sent off to war to kill the children of our wise leader’s enemies. We have never really had a problem with the average citizen.

A far better idea for future wars would be to make sure that the first casualties of any conflict would be the children of leaders. They are the ones who vote for and have caused every war, and so their sons and daughters should be immediately drafter for any conflict they start. The draft should begin only after all of the children, nieces and nephews of our Presidents, Congressmen and Senators have been killed in mortal battle.

The first targets of our armies should be the leaders and their families. Not more hapless child soldiers of the voiceless masses.

[Fear The People]

drafter = drafted
:)

[DJ Taylor]

"Very few people are that mentally ill and still able to hold responsible jobs."

You are either very young or you have lived a very sheltered life.

[DuncanWaring]

Here’s a different thought: People with their hands in each other’s pockets are not going to take them out to shoot and kill each other. The developed nations are now too interconnected economically to start wars.

There was a fellow back around 1910 who wrote a book (the name escapes me) making precisely that point; that for economic reasons, there would never be another major war in Europe.

[equaviator]

So...the world would be better off without us?...as the History Channel series “Life After People” suggests?

[aces]

Man definitely does not understand much, but if all we ever say in response to idiocy is lets talk nicebwill the contrast be drawn..
As far as the world being better off without humans, the world was created for us..God can makes worlds with a word..perhaps one day we will stop hugging the social to make ourselves look good and see the ruin of our ways..come Lord.

[Toucan Dance]

Wasn’t me,but I think I’d like that book. If you ever remember the title, let me know. I’ll see what I can do about finding it on my own. Thanks

[Toucan Dance]

Neither. I am, however, deeply introspective and a great student of human nature as well.

[DuncanWaring]

Wilco.

[DuncanWaring]

Courtesy of Larry Schweikart:

“The Great Illusion”.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Illusion-Sir-Norman-Angell/dp/1602069387