Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • Shalom!

  • At times like this, I really wish I spoke Hebrew.

  • I have no idea what he just said, but I'm going to make a quick introduction

  • before I begin the formal speech

  • in great gratitude to The Zeitgeist Movement Israel

  • that have made this possible.

  • [Applause]

  • My name is Peter Joseph.

  • I work with an organization called The Zeitgeist Movement.

  • While most of my talks are about inherent economic inefficiencies

  • which are fueling the majority of the civil unrest, ecological abuse

  • and general deprivation that we see in the world today

  • coupled with highlighting existing, yet unapplied scientific realizations

  • that could solve such problems in general

  • not to mention creating a new societal design

  • originating out of another form of thought

  • that would virtually guarantee environmental

  • and social sustainability if implemented

  • the central focus of this talk is a little bit more temporal.

  • It's different than any other talk I've given.

  • The title of this presentation is 'Defining Peace: Economics

  • the State and War'.

  • It's divided into 4 sections.

  • The first is entitled 'The History of Human Conflict

  • and the Human Nature Debate'.

  • As the evidence will show, the stubborn concept that we

  • humans are inherently and inalterably aggressive

  • and territorial will be addressed.

  • Finding that early societies did not engage

  • in mass warfare and that most conflicts

  • especially the large scale mobilization we see in the modern world

  • are actually the result of conditions

  • real or contrived that lure

  • the human being into a position of aggression.

  • This will then lead us into the consideration of our environmental condition

  • and the structural and psychological modes that encompass it

  • leading to the understanding that when it comes to war

  • the condition as we know it is set by the state

  • generally speaking.

  • Part 2: 'The State Character and Coercion'.

  • We'll consider the origin of the modern state and its characteristics.

  • It's been found that there's an average set of qualities

  • that pertain to these concentrations of power.

  • Moreover and more profoundly, the influence of the state

  • on the values of the culture will be addressed

  • especially regarding loyalty, patriotism

  • and how easy it has been

  • for a very small number of political and commercial interests

  • to entice the public that their wars are moral, right and beneficial.

  • Then in Part 3: 'The Culture of War

  • Business, Ownership and Competition'

  • a deeper look at the underlining condition motivation

  • which appears to have created the state and its power

  • and the war propensity itself will be considered.

  • Focusing on the roots of our social system

  • and how not only is war natural

  • to the current economic methods we use

  • it is inevitable.

  • It will be expressed that the structural basis and resulting psychology

  • that exists in the monetary market system of economics

  • that governs the world today is the core driver

  • of human conflict in the world overall.

  • In the final section, Part 4: 'Defining Peace

  • a New Social Contract'

  • we will consider the causal logic of what we have described prior

  • and in a basic reductionist method, deduce what societal characteristics

  • support peace, and what do not

  • and how we as a world society can reset

  • our societal condition to allow for this newfound human balance

  • before it's too late.

  • Before we begin, I need to address a broader issue

  • that I feel is understated in the world.

  • It seems to sit at the core of society as historically lackluster inability

  • to change (which I think we all might notice)

  • not only in the context of global warfare

  • which we see as almost natural in the world today, unfortunately

  • but also with respect to common sense social changes for the better

  • which are systematically rejected, without legitimate logical defenses.

  • Very simply, it appears that traditional sentiment

  • is constantly in conflict with emergent knowledge.

  • For example, once an ideological institution is established

  • usually with the basic consensus of the population at large

  • a time-armorial distinction emerges

  • which implies that this practice or belief is now empirical to the human condition

  • and will last forever.

  • We see this characteristic in religious, political and economic thought

  • most pervasively, but no intellectual discipline

  • or social advent seems to be immune.

  • Even those who call themselves scientists

  • claiming to hold dear the vigorous ethic demanded by the scientific method

  • often fall victim to traditional biases

  • and erroneous loyalties, skewing their findings.

  • Those loyalties are almost always born

  • out of a traditional, customary culture and its dominant institutions

  • with which those personalities are groomed.

  • I think Dr. Gabor Maté put this issue very well

  • "It is simply a matter of historical fact

  • that the dominant intellectual culture of any particular society

  • reflects the interests of the dominant group in that society.

  • In a slave-owning society, the beliefs about human beings and human rights

  • will reflect the needs of the slave owners.

  • In a society which is based on the power of certain people

  • to control and profit from the lives and work of millions of others

  • the dominant intellectual culture will reflect the needs of the dominant group.

  • If you look across the board, the ideas that pervade psychology, sociology

  • history, political economy and political science

  • fundamentally reflect certain elite interests.

  • The academics who question that too much

  • tend to get shunted to the side or to be seen as sort of 'radicals'."

  • A cursory glance at ideas which were once considered absurd

  • impossible, subversive or even dangerous

  • which later evolved to serving human progress

  • shows a clear pattern of how wrong we can be in our loyalties.

  • It is axiomatic to say that many ideas which will enable progress

  • and benefit society in the future will be hideously opposed

  • and fought in the present-day.

  • It seems the more broadly beneficial the new idea, in hindsight

  • the worse the initial reaction is, by contemporary culture.

  • A classic case and point is the gruelingly slow recognition

  • of the mechanistic nature of scientific causality in the world

  • an understanding and method which has facilitated

  • every single attribute of human progress in history

  • from the solutions of disease resolution

  • to the advent of abundance-producing technology

  • to our understanding of the human condition itself

  • and how the planet works.

  • The scientific method, which is really

  • the materialization of logic and application

  • was not only met with the most heretical condemnation

  • by those institutions of political and religious power historically

  • it is, I'm sad to say, still rejected today

  • in many areas of thought and application.

  • Anti-science perspectives

  • tend to reside with issues of supposed morality

  • argued in a vast wasteland of subjective perspectives.

  • A classic example is the highlighting of technological advances

  • that have been used for detrimental purposes, such as weaponry

  • which clearly has nothing to do with technology

  • but with the distortion of motivation by the culture who's using it.

  • A more sophisticated claim is that the scientific method is simply not objective.

  • You will find this view held by early Western philosophers

  • like Thomas Hobbes or Robert Boyle.

  • Here I can actually find some sympathy

  • but only with respect to a certain irony

  • given the ongoing interference of cultural victimization on the outcome

  • of ostensibly scientific conclusions, as noted before.

  • So-called scientists are not to be confused with the method of science.

  • Very often the cultural influence and deposits of value

  • are simply too strong of a bias to allow for the objectivity required.

  • The more controversial the new scientific finding

  • the more dissonance usually occurs, and that's what the historical record shows.

  • In a classic text by authors Cohen and Nagel entitled

  • 'An Introduction to Logic and the Scientific Method' (a book I recommend)

  • this point was very well stated with respect to the process

  • of empirical logical evaluation and its independence from human psychology.

  • It states "The logical distinction between valid and invalid inference

  • does not refer to the way we think (the process going on in someone's mind).

  • The weight of evidence is not itself a temporal event

  • but a relation of implication between certain classes or types of propositions.

  • Of course, thought is necessary to apprehend such implications

  • however, that does not make physics a branch of psychology.

  • The realization that logic can not be restricted to psychological phenomenon

  • will help us to discriminate between our science and our rhetoric

  • conceiving the latter as the art of persuasion or of arguing

  • so as to reduce the feeling of certainty.

  • Our emotional dispositions make it very difficult for us to accept

  • certain propositions, no matter how strong the evidence in their favor.

  • Since all proof depends on the acceptance of certain propositions as truth

  • no proposition can be proved true

  • to one who is sufficiently determined not to believe it."

  • What is it that comprises that force that stops

  • what we would call objective thought? Cultural conditioning and its values.

  • Seems very obvious, but unfortunately we're all victim to this.

  • We humans have no spontaneous thoughts or actions.

  • We are causal organisms perpetuating a chain of ideas and reactions

  • always existing in an 'intermediate tenure'.

  • Coming back to the central context, it is critical to point out

  • that there is nothing more ingrained in a culture sense of identity

  • than the broad social institutions we are born into

  • and the values they perpetuated. The older the tradition is

  • the stronger the fight to preserve it.

  • The world, in many respects, is now an accelerating clash

  • between stubborn traditional conceits

  • upheld by institutions which continue to gain from their exploitation

  • and the emergent, scientific reality and logical assessment

  • that is proven to illuminate the closest approximation

  • to truth we have as a species.

  • As I begin this assessment of the nature of war and peace

  • a controversial subject indeed, I'd like everyone to listen to themselves

  • monitor their own personal reactions to the statements I make.

  • When you encounter something you don't agree with, honestly ask yourself

  • where is that dissonance originating from?

  • Is it coming from a technical analysis

  • where the variables are being taken into account on their own merit

  • absent the messenger? Or is that disagreement coming from perspectives

  • which just might be based on cultural value comforts, which

  • for better or worse, have defined what you think is empirical normality

  • regardless if it's true or not.

  • That noted, let's get a few things out of way regarding myself

  • given the sensitive territory I'm about to embark.

  • I'm not here to speak with condemnation of any country, political party

  • religious claim or institution at all.

  • I'm not here to argue in favor of war or against US imperialism.

  • I'm not here to even inflame bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

  • nor am I here to pose judgment on any party or power explicitly

  • despite the endless notable atrocities illuminated by history.

  • Why? Because when it comes to change, and I mean real change

  • all currently received angles of common debate

  • and their postulated, inner-systems solutions 'in the box'

  • are invalid when the broad context is understood regarding war.

  • We need to think on a different level now.

  • Given that frame of reference, I cannot logically be loyal to any country.

  • I have no loyalty to any person, guru or leader

  • or any respect to submission. I hold no loyalty to any race, religion

  • political party or established ideological creed

  • and most importantly, I hold no empirical faith of permanence

  • in any assumption of supposed fact

  • historical, current or future, beyond the understanding

  • that all known human conceptions will evolve

  • change, refine, from here until the end of our existence.

  • The only constant is change.

  • [Applause]

  • The only constant is obviously change.

  • While that seems like a self-canceling paradox

  • the purpose of the historical record itself is really for us to gain inference

  • from everything we see in history whatever the discipline may be

  • and when we apply the scientific method of evaluation to its patterns

  • we can draw relevant conclusions.

  • That is basically what we do with our minds.

  • Science is our tool for creating a better world for all human beings

  • while preserving the habitat and very simply

  • (as this work will describe) it is only when we change the structure

  • of the predominant global social system

  • namely its economic premise, which precedes all others in causality

  • that what could be called 'world peace' is possible.

  • Part One: The History of Human Conflict and the Human Nature Debate.

  • It appears that much of the world's cultures still possess

  • largely superstitious views of human conduct

  • territoriality and supposed inevitabilities of war

  • both from the standpoint of offensive provocation and defense.

  • It has been argued historically that humans have an innate tendency for violence

  • implying at the extreme cases that regardless of the nature of the circumstance

  • violent, domineering behavior will erupt

  • almost randomly like a pressure valve releasing steam.

  • Therefore, as the logic goes, the posture of war and protection

  • is deemed a natural, inevitable consequence for everyone.

  • This idea has taken on various metaphysical forms in history

  • with likely the most notable being the religious notion of evil and good:

  • evil existing as a spiritual force that simply cannot be stopped

  • only protected against.

  • As will be discussed more later, this use of the good and evil duality

  • along with many other truly superstitious assumptions

  • is still very much a part of the motivating political rhetoric

  • that works to entice public support for the states' wars.

  • A powerful tool of propaganda indeed, especially given the fact

  • that the majority of humans on this planet still assume

  • such religious forms of causality, hence the inherent credulity.

  • However, if you were to ask most moderately-educated individuals

  • what they mean by the term 'evil'

  • the definition would probably be relegated ostensibly

  • to the scientific notion of human instinct.

  • Given the near contextual equivalent of these notions in context

  • I think Dr. James Gilligan of Harvard University Center for Study of Violence

  • in America had the most direct response. He states

  • "One reason the instinctual argument for violent behavior

  • is to support the status quo.

  • If violence is innate and instinctual, then clearly there is no point

  • in trying to change our social and economic system."

  • What does history and modern science really show with respect

  • to the human sociological condition regarding patterns of violence

  • with respect to the human nature debate?

  • Have they found the 'war gene' that enables this instinct

  • for us to come in mass and kill other people?

  • Is there anything in the physical sciences that they can express

  • an empirical causality residing in the evolutionary biology

  • or even the evolutionary psychology

  • of the human organism to express violence inevitably?

  • The answer as modern sociobiological research has shown is clearly 'no'.

  • It is found that the entire basis of assumption

  • that has drawn the conclusion that humans are innately violent

  • comes from a narrow comparison of events

  • with high levels of omission, with respect to what circumstances

  • or conditions brought about those events.

  • There is only one universal factor that can be measured

  • with respect to development and execution of violence

  • whether civilian or military, and that is the environment.

  • The only known trackable, universal variable

  • is the nature of the environment, physical and sociological

  • which the human being has been raised into or exists in.

  • At the very core of our human definition

  • is really the environment itself, something I find quite interesting.

  • As a species, our physical and mental facilities were selected

  • and left remaining by biological evolution

  • with respect to what best enables our fitness and survival.

  • We are literally manifest of the physical environment

  • and natural physical laws that govern that environment.

  • This is what evolution is: a shaping process of the universe

  • to slowly conform new emerging entities to existing conditions

  • so they work. This is why we exist on Earth and have the components we do

  • breathing air versus existing on Venus.

  • If we evolved there, we'd have very different components

  • to be able to survive there, if we could survive at all.

  • Even our gene expression, which is assumed to be at the core

  • of our supposedly fixed human nature psychology

  • is actually controlled by environmental stimulus

  • (something people don't talk about enough).

  • For example, if you take a child at birth and place him or her in a dark room

  • for a certain period, the genetic propensity to see will simply not develop.

  • If you take an infant at birth and feed it and house it

  • yet never touch or give affection to that young infant

  • not only would that child not grow, it will likely die

  • because affection is intrinsic to the infancy stage of development:

  • environmental influence.

  • In the end, what is found is that the single greatest determining factor

  • influencing the human organism in the long and short term

  • is the environment around us, with our genes reacting to that stimulus

  • within a certain range of possibility.

  • The more we learn about his relationship

  • the larger the range of possibility seems to reveal itself, on many levels.

  • The largest range of possibilities enabled by environmental causality

  • is on the level of culture.

  • When we realize the magnitude of cultural influence on human psychology

  • and sociology, we are left with the glaring realization

  • that the most profound imperative we have

  • when it comes to changing human behavior

  • is to change the circumstance we exist in

  • both with regard to primal core survival, such as access to the necessities of life

  • and safety, to the subtle educational and cultural influences

  • that shape the way we view the world and each other.

  • That isn't to say humans do not have an evolutionarily derived nature.

  • Our general instinct to live, to procreate

  • to even defend ourselves if threatened

  • most certainly we have these tendencies; we are not blank slates.

  • The consideration of our common auto responses or so-called instincts

  • are indeed still factors to consider in general in the equation

  • but the equation is so greatly skewed

  • what has been found is that we have a predictable range of behavior

  • based almost entirely upon the conditions present

  • and the difference between one human being picking up a weapon

  • and killing another in cold blood as the institution of war formally demands

  • and one who chooses not to, is purely a cultural contrivance.

  • What separates a serial killer

  • who profiles a group of people for systematic murder

  • and a soldier who does the same thing?

  • Where does the moral line draw?

  • To me, as controversial as it may seem, it doesn't draw

  • for there really is no moral line at all

  • when the circumstances of the person are considered.

  • For each person is and can only be a consequence of their environment

  • whether biologically induced or culturally programmed

  • and the latter holds far more weight than the former

  • when it comes to human behavior and choice.

  • Sorry to drill it in.

  • For those who might think such a notion is dangerous

  • and cold, no morality

  • perhaps with the assumption that we humans require some type of moral guidance

  • for civility, such as the traditional religious commandment:

  • "Thou shalt not kill."

  • I ask you from a more pragmatic standpoint:

  • Have these age-old ideals done anything

  • to stop the seemingly endless global violence

  • human abuse towards each other and the anti-human exploitations

  • that exist on a daily basis? The answer is obviously 'no'.

  • Imposed philosophic morality will not save the world.

  • Only a calculated tangible plan

  • to alter our circumstances so that such actions pose no merit

  • will stop what we consider to be immoral behavior.

  • With that out of the way, let's take a brief examination of history

  • with its relationship to conflict.

  • I'm going to start in a place you might not expect: our primate ancestors.

  • Older anthropological studies that have attempted to justify human violence

  • would often compare humans to our earlier stages of evolution

  • for their pattern recognition. It seems logical on the surface

  • since we share about 95 - 99% of the DNA of chimpanzees

  • and other primates in that spectrum. Sounds impressive.

  • It might also sound impressive that fruit flies

  • share about 60% of human genes

  • but that connection to behavior is dubious at best, I think we'd all admit.

  • That's because the sharing of genes in this context

  • has almost no relevance whatsoever

  • as counterintuitive as that approach is.

  • Regardless, there are indeed common behaviors relating to violence

  • we do see between human society and non-human primate society

  • such as social stratification, even pure murder

  • elements of organized violence, revenge reactions

  • trust and antitrust responses

  • and a number of other reactions that we certainly recognize in our own species.

  • Like human culture, they also show unique variations and exceptions

  • to this behavior based on experiences and conditions

  • which make such notions of trait universality

  • difficult to diagnose empirically.

  • For example, an anthropologist and neuroscientist at Stanford University

  • who spent decades studying a baboon troop in Africa was amazed

  • to witness a social transformation in this troop after the Alpha males

  • of the group became poisoned by accident and died

  • leaving only the lower, less aggressive classes in the troop.

  • This removal of the Alphas and their troop dominance

  • apparently transformed this group into one with much lower levels of violence

  • and aggression than he had ever seen before

  • not only for that existing generation, even a decade later

  • due to this environmental cultural shift in the troop

  • they still maintain low levels of aggression

  • even when they acquire new males that migrate from other troops

  • who have those normal aggressive tendencies.

  • They are actually able to condition those new members

  • into equally lower patterns of aggression on average

  • hence the cultural conditioning.

  • It's a very unique finding. Does that mean that baboons can be conditioned

  • to wear business suits and drive cars to peace rallies

  • and sing John Lennon's song 'Imagine'? Of course not.

  • We're dealing with a range of behavior. Therefore the pertinent question becomes:

  • What is the range of the human being?

  • It appears that the more simple the organism is in biology

  • (especially its cognitive development if there is any) the less flexibility it has.

  • The classic example would be ants, who show steadfast predictable behaviors

  • almost to the extent that they are mere chemical machines

  • unfolding in an automatic way

  • but the more complex the organism, generally speaking, the more versatile.

  • If you examine what we understand now about human brain evolution

  • from its reptilian status to early mammalians

  • to the late mammal changes, reasonable evidence suggests

  • that the current state of our cerebral cortex, especially the neo-cortex

  • is what enables a very unique, adaptive understanding and flexibility

  • we take for granted in human society, or even don't recognize.

  • This is also clearly evident in the vast, varied cultural expressions

  • we see and have seen in the world historically.

  • It's a unique thing, where on one side of the planet

  • you can have pacifist communities with little to no violence

  • while the other side: systematic daily slaughter.

  • Given no evidence to support true psychological differences

  • in races, only the regional conditions and culture

  • can explain these vast differences.

  • This leads me to a general history of human society and warfare.

  • Likely the best place to start is the vast period of human existence

  • as hunter-gatherers before the Neolithic Revolution

  • and the advent of agriculture and common tools

  • which was roughly 12,000 years ago.

  • We often forget that 99% of what we define as Homo-Sapien (us)

  • existed in largely non-stratified, egalitarian social structures

  • with low levels of violence, and the pattern of mass-mobilization for warfare

  • as we know it, virtually nonexistent.

  • The few hunter-gatherer groups that still exist today

  • in isolated pockets still show support for this general, peaceful manner.

  • It appears that after the Neolithic Revolution

  • with the advent of us being able to control our environment

  • hence production and stockpiling of food

  • the creation of tools, the ordering of labor rules, etc.

  • the seeds of our current socioeconomic system were planted.

  • It is easy to see how the basic concept of value

  • as derived from one's labor manifested a protectionist and reciprocal system

  • of exchange of labor, even though such value and market notions

  • were not formally realized until the 17th or 18th centuries.

  • As this progression continued from the Neolithic Revolution

  • the passive often nomadic lifestyles of the hunter-gatherer

  • slowly became replaced with the settled, protectionist tribes

  • and then eventually localized city-type societies.

  • It is here where we begin to see warfare as we know it

  • including the technology that enables this weaponry

  • which is a conversation in and of itself.

  • In the words of Richard A. Gabriel in a text called 'A Short History of War'

  • "The invention and spread of agriculture

  • coupled with the domestication of animals in the 5th century BC

  • are acknowledged as the developments that set the stage for the emergence

  • of the first large-scale, complex urban cities.

  • These societies which appear almost simultaneously around 4000 BC

  • in Egypt and Mesopotamia used stone tools

  • but within 500 years stone tools and weapons gave way to bronze.

  • With bronze manufacture came a revolution in warfare."

  • It is also the period that the concept of the state

  • and the permanence of the armed force emerged.

  • "These early civilizations produced the first example of state- governing institutions

  • initially as centralized chiefdoms and later as monarchies.

  • At the same time, centralization demanded the creation of an administrative structure

  • capable of directing social... [Technical problem with microphone]

  • The development of central state institutions and a supporting administrative apparatus

  • inevitably gave form and stability to military structures.

  • The result was the expansion and stabilization

  • of the formerly loose and unstable warrior castes.

  • By 2700 BC in Sumer

  • there was a fully articulated military structure

  • and standing army organized along modern lines.

  • The standing army emerged as a permanent part of the social structure

  • and was endowed with strong claims to social legitimacy

  • and has been with us ever since."

  • Since that time of those early forms of modern civilization

  • there have been thousands of wars

  • most of which have to do with the acquisition of resources or territory

  • where one group is either working to expand its power and material wealth

  • or working to protect itself from others trying to conquer and absorb it.

  • This is essentially still the same state of affairs today.

  • The question to be asked is: Why the persistence of the tendency?

  • Where's the root origin? What motivates an army to kill

  • in a controlled cold manner for the sake of the state's benefit?

  • As will be expanded upon as we continue this talk

  • the tendency for war is not a universal human trait that demands expression

  • but a very sensitive vulnerability

  • to one's sense of social identity, sense of acceptance

  • fear and general personal concern which if properly organized

  • can be manipulated into the service of one group over another.

  • The human nature debate regarding violence which shows no universals

  • does reveal a highly probable response tendency

  • when certain environmental stimulus is presented to the human

  • to generate fear or offense.

  • What has been set in motion since the early period of modern warfare

  • is not some anomaly of human society

  • nor does it appear to be an unstoppable human tendency.

  • Rather, it appears to be a natural characteristic of:

  • 1) The function of the state institution and its inherent need for control

  • along with the core of its origin

  • the foundational economic assumptions of resource scarcity

  • superstition and the psychology it perpetuates.

  • Part Two: The State, Character and Coercion

  • Since the very nature of modern warfare is almost universally representative

  • of a larger social entity and governmental apparatus known as the state

  • let's consider its basic characteristics in general.

  • The first to note is its basis in self-protection.

  • Since the state was born out of tribal sovereignty

  • where independent authority is claimed over a geographical area

  • (a region which had been stolen from some other group

  • who will likely claim the same thing at some point)

  • the issue of protection is inherent and consequential

  • Not only protection from external forces

  • but from what can be rightfully called in feudalistic terms 'its subjects'.

  • These subjects are also historically held to hold a duty

  • or responsibility to the state's institutional preservation.

  • This medieval remnant is not only with respect to "serving your country"

  • such as joining the armed forces, but also found in the notions of treason

  • sedition and other legal protections

  • that work directly against the citizenry

  • if they were to get out of line, too far.

  • It is also worth pointing out that these elements of internal protection

  • have been updated by more modern means

  • such as with the fairly new concept of 'the terrorist'

  • and its inherently open, ambiguous distinction

  • which can be applied to both foreign and domestic citizens

  • enabling an even more flexible form of internal protection

  • due to its ambiguity.

  • As far as the broad characteristics and nature of interaction of states

  • state entities (excuse me) across the world

  • it is generally safe to break them up into categories of superpowers

  • powers, sub-powers and in feudalistic terms, vassal states.

  • After the Cold War, the US is noted to have emerged as the world's first superpower

  • as defined by its military and economic might.

  • The powers, many of which are gaining traction today

  • and could now be called parallel superpowers

  • are the other large economies such as China, Britain, Russia, etc.

  • each always with enormous military power as well.

  • The sub-powers could be considered the more passive

  • yet independent states, which is the majority

  • while the vassal states are the ones that operate in subservience

  • to the power states, often providing economic advantage

  • through subjugation, on one level or another.

  • With respect to subjugation, this is a core characteristic

  • of the predatory nature of the state institution.

  • It is worth pointing out that the tactics of subjugation

  • which is what in many ways facilitates the states' power status

  • have changed over time in effect becoming more covert in its warfare.

  • Some of these methods are not physically violent at all

  • at least not on the surface.

  • These include economic warfare approaches which serve

  • as complete acts of aggression in and of themselves

  • or a part of a procedural prelude

  • to traditional military action, which comes in the form of trade tariffs

  • sanctions, debt by coercion

  • and many other lesser known, covert methods

  • which typically have to do with a sense of debt

  • with dealings of the World Bank or the IMF

  • or the United Nations in the sense of sanctions.

  • These globally sanctioned, financial institutions

  • have heavy vested business and state interests behind them

  • and have the power to impose debt to bail out suffering countries

  • at the expense of the quality of life of its citizenry

  • often taking charge of natural resources or industries

  • through select privatization or other manners that could weaken

  • a country's ability to the effect that it becomes reliant on others

  • and their industries.

  • This is simply a more covert form of subjugation

  • than we saw with the British Empire during its imperial expansion

  • and the East India Company, the commercial force

  • that took advantage of the newly conquered regional resources

  • and labor in Asia in the 19th century.

  • Some analysts will compare the British Empire to the United States

  • and examine how the fact that the US gained its status

  • through not just military pressure

  • but through the presence of this very covert complex economic strategy

  • which repositions other countries into subjugation

  • to US economic and geo-economic interests.

  • Why?

  • Because as will be addressed in more detail in Part Three

  • despite the superstitious rhetoric to the contrary

  • the state is nothing more than a manifestation

  • and extension of the economic paradigm.

  • It is an economic entity in its purest form

  • and this is something many today seem not to fully understand.

  • The conduct of the state is based on methods of resecuring itself

  • by whatever means necessary. Those who condemn the United States

  • as a corporate, commercial state empire

  • as though such a disposition is an anomaly of state power behavior

  • are not taking into account the very economic premise

  • upon which it is based, as we will discuss as we go along.

  • Those basic issues aside

  • let's now hone more into the coercive tendency of the state

  • with respect to its war posture.

  • Since behind the state (as with any institution) are human beings

  • and their values, the issue of mass-conditioning

  • to support the state's integrity is paramount to its survival

  • As history has shown, when it comes to war

  • the public at large rarely, if ever

  • initiates the original interest in conflict

  • only the politicians and their benefactors do.

  • Then, they work to entice their subjects for support.

  • Patriotism, honor, the moral crusade:

  • The first thing to notice about all state wars in preparation

  • is that they never express themselves as being offensive

  • only defensive, the common defense as it's called.

  • In the US, the Department of Defense is the name of our war ministry, really.

  • It sounds noble, while also immediately implying

  • the assumption of fear from the external.

  • While the general public sees this fear in a traditional, invasive sense

  • the more relevant fear is on the state level.

  • It is discrete, and the fear has to do with the state power's fear of loss:

  • the loss of power.

  • Perhaps the best expression of this was exemplified in the work

  • by former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski

  • 'The Grand Chessboard' was the name of his work and this book details

  • a series of extremely accurate observations and predictions

  • with respect to what it will take for America to remain

  • as the world's major power, specifically its necessity to control Eurasia

  • and the Middle East.

  • In this posture, the fear is generated out of an unargued assumption

  • that American global leadership is the only way.

  • The chess game to preserve should

  • always should be in our own favor, or else, perhaps

  • the world at large will suffer as a result.

  • It's a classic imperialist apologist view

  • that we the Americans and our allies must take over everything

  • because we know better.

  • Coupled with this fear-based assumption is that if the US

  • isn't the empire power, then another one will come along

  • and hurt US interests

  • which on the of social maturity at this stage happens to be true

  • (and this is what Brzezinski argues) but at no point

  • is there a viable reflection on social balance.

  • It's simply not considered

  • which is absolutely characteristic of the state entity

  • and its foundation, so we shouldn't blame Brzezinski for his view.

  • He is simply expressing what is sadly normality

  • even though, as we'll describe, is wholly inhumane

  • and extremely unsustainable.

  • He states "America is now the only global superpower

  • and Eurasia is the globe's central arena.

  • Hence what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent

  • will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy

  • and to America's historical legacy.

  • To put it into terminology that harkens back

  • to the more brutal age of ancient empires

  • the 3 grand imperatives of imperial geo-strategy

  • are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals

  • to keep tributaries pliant and protected

  • and to keep the barbarians from coming together.

  • Henceforth, the United States may have determined

  • how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia

  • thereby threatening America's status as a global power."

  • If you read this work, which was written about 15 years ago

  • you will notice even right now immediately

  • that the American imperialist state and its allies have been acting

  • upon this specific interest explicitly.

  • However, you will not see the political establishment or mainstream media

  • expressing this view at all to the public in its day-to-day affairs

  • even though Brzezinski will argue it as though it's common sense.

  • The media, corporations and the state

  • go back to age-old tactics of psychological coercion

  • which is based entirely upon a metaphysical fantasy kind of rhetoric

  • which utilizes ideas such as faith and moral good

  • patriotism and the idea of honor, fear in common defense

  • and other largely empty concepts

  • which serve only to mobilize the population

  • to support the interests of the waring party.

  • Thorstein Veblen, a sociologist and economist, who will be quoted quite a bit

  • in this presentation, I think put this best in 1917

  • "Any patriotism will serve as a ways and means to warlike enterprise

  • and the competent management, even if the people

  • are not habitually prone to a bellicose temper.

  • Rightly managed, ordinary patriotic sentiment

  • may readily be mobilized for warlike adventure

  • by any reasonably adroit and single-minded body of statesmen

  • of which there is abundant illustration."

  • Abundant illustration indeed

  • for at the core of all social motivation for war

  • rests a subset of such intangible values

  • which are in all reality exceedingly xenophobic

  • neurotic and irrational.

  • Veblen continues "It is also quite a safe generalization

  • that when hostilities have once been got fairly under way

  • by the interested statesman, the patriotic sentiment of the nation

  • may confidently be counted on to back the enterprise

  • irrespective of the merits of the quarrel."

  • I think this is best exemplified today with the common American phrase

  • which probably carries over to other countries "I'm against the war

  • but support the troops!"

  • This is what could be called 'classic Orwellian doublethink'

  • and has been very effective in reducing public outcry

  • which then plays into the concept of honor

  • and the very sacrificial nature of the soldier entities themselves.

  • Here is where the ceremony and elaborate costumes

  • medals, authority appearances find their place.

  • Honor is formalized through ceremonials, medals and postures of respect

  • events and other adornments which impress the public

  • as to the value of the actions of the soldiers

  • and hence the value of the war that they represent.

  • This also creates a cultural taboo

  • where to insult any element of the war apparatus

  • can be seen as showing disrespect to the sacrifice

  • of the Armed Forces and their honor, hence reinforcing the broad illusion

  • that the initiation of wars are noble acts with noble participants.

  • Paired with the notion of honor and the effect of what it represents

  • resides the ultimate tool to crusade: morality.

  • Veble continues "Any warlike enterprise that is hopeful to be entered on

  • must have the moral sanction of the community or of an effective majority

  • in the community. It consequently becomes the first concern

  • of the warlike statesman to put his moral force in train

  • for the adventure on which he is bent.

  • There are two main lines of motivation:

  • 1) The preservation or furtherance

  • of the community's material interest, real or fancied

  • 2) Vindication of the national honor.

  • To these should perhaps be added a third:

  • the advancement and perpetuation of the nature's culture.

  • This last point on the perpetuation of the nature's culture

  • is best exemplified by the Western imperial catchphrase

  • of seeking to spread 'Freedom and Democracy'

  • in a metaphysic/religious notion, pure and simple.

  • The actual meaning of this poetically fanciful yet entirely empty phrase

  • has more to do with the perseverance of private interests and their freedom

  • than some moral objection to another country's supposed inhumanity

  • and the interest to 'liberate them' or whatever.

  • It is no different than the infamous

  • ideological crusades during the Middle Ages

  • which always had an underlying material and territorial interest

  • for the benefit of the few behind-the-scenes

  • despite the religious overlay we hear in history.

  • I can think of nothing more powerful

  • than the mobilization of religious moral values

  • in service of the few who actually gain from the war enterprise.

  • The notion of freedom and democracy is equally as persuasive

  • as the historical notion of one religious group seeking to save another

  • by invasion and subjugation.

  • I hope that connection is made.

  • That acknowledged, let's consider the general unfolding of the war venture.

  • With the seed of patriotism and ongoing reinforcement of sentiment

  • in a given population whose political constituents seek to motivate for war

  • the first step is usually an event that creates a direct imposition of fear

  • that's coupled with a violation of the national honor metaphysic.

  • Zbigniew Brzezinski understood this well and he stated on the issue

  • "The attitude of the American public toward the external projection

  • of American power has been much more ambivalent.

  • The public supported America's engagement in World War II

  • largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

  • As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society

  • it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues

  • except in the circumstance of a truly massive

  • and widely perceived, direct external threat."

  • This can be not only a threat

  • in a real sense but also a metaphysical one

  • in the sense of intangible moral, honor or outrage.

  • If we go through history, say the United States' wars...

  • (as an American this is the history I'm most familiar with)

  • if we go through the US' wars, we find that the point of provocation

  • that leads to war is almost always of a minor nature

  • in proportion to what follows, exacerbated entirely by the irrational

  • moral outrage and honor neurosis

  • that leads to seeking retribution and revenge

  • manipulating the public to believe such things.

  • From the Mexican-American War for example of 1846

  • that began with a scuffle along the Mexican domination of Texas

  • the news reports proclaimed 'off the cuff' that

  • "Mexicans are killing our boys in Texas! " plastered all over the news.

  • In this little war, stealing land from Mexico

  • cost 30,000 deaths in total over the course of a few years.

  • 30,000 deaths and that's a long time ago.

  • The Vietnam-American War which was provoked by a supposed torpedo attack

  • that didn't kill anybody, yet opened the public support for an involvement

  • that killed about 3.5 million humans!

  • Nearly all of these imperial wars, including the inclusion of the US

  • in world wars, pose proportionally nominal inflictions statistically

  • yet grossly amplified by the public's jingoistic reactions.

  • The basic sociological understanding was formalized

  • in a CIA created plan called 'Operation Northwoods'

  • when the US was seeking an excuse to invade Cuba in the 1960s.

  • They planned to conduct a series of terrorist attacks internally

  • and then blame them on Cuba for the sake of public perception and support

  • hence exploiting their moral outrage and fear. This is public record

  • and dare I add

  • the king of all modern religious events

  • one that provoked every level of moral outrage

  • honor and patriotic neurosis

  • the events of September 11th, 2001 prove beyond any doubt

  • that the causality of a given provocation need not have

  • any true bearing on the actions that follow by the State

  • given enough shock and jingoistic fervor.

  • Even if the US government's official narrative of this event

  • was absolutely true, 100% truth

  • the actions of the US government and its allies that followed the event

  • had nothing to do with anything that relates to the event itself.

  • Absolutely nothing, if you paid attention.

  • [Applause]

  • It merely opened the floodgates of patriotic retribution

  • and allowed for a virtually open palette of imperial mobilization.

  • Back to the broader point of state character beyond the US

  • the acts of 9/11 also open the floodgates for a broader redefinition of terms

  • for almost every power structure in the world

  • because intrinsically, the power structures of the world, the state entity

  • are self-contained in their very definition.

  • They don't really care about any other country or about their population.

  • It's not a moral thing. It's the way that they've been constructed.

  • From Turkey to Russia, to Israel, to the UK, etc.

  • the benefit of 9/11 was massive to the State in hindering the public

  • the external, engulfing and exacerbating its power.

  • For the record, there is no war on terrorism.

  • There can be...

  • [Applause]

  • There can be no such thing as a war on an abstraction.

  • It has no universally operational premise. It has no location

  • and even worse, it has no universal notion of success

  • not to mention all acts of so-called 'terrorism' are statistically invalid

  • with respect to true threats to human society

  • and public health, but that's for another conversation.

  • Trillions of dollars being spent on an affair when we have people dying

  • of so many other things that money could take good use with

  • but we all know what the real intent actually is:

  • The real war being waged is actually on problem resolution and human harmony.

  • The real war is on a balance of power and social justice.

  • The real war is on the institution of economic equality.

  • Unfortunately, social stability is not a sought characteristic

  • of large state enterprises for it affords no advantage.

  • The true tool of terrorism is not as an act of violence

  • by an incredibly small desperate subculture that does exist

  • but a tool of excuse by the State

  • for further power consolidation, foreign and domestic. I won't drill it in.

  • As I complete this section of the talk regarding societal manipulation

  • by state powers for the purposes of reinforcing state integrity

  • at the ongoing expense of other states and its subjects, I'm often asked:

  • What defines social cohesion now, and community trust?

  • Isn't patriotism and national pride a positive force on some level?

  • If you think about it, nearly all notions of community

  • have basically been overridden by the ever-dividing premise

  • of market competition and the privatization of everything.

  • There's very little left in the world that instills

  • structurally social capital and community trust anymore.

  • Even the so-called egalitarian states of the world:

  • Norway, Sweden, etc. are showing

  • large patterns of imbalanced growth and income equality

  • hence their loss of community. It's getting worse, in other words.

  • For internal purposes, it could be said that patriotism does serve a role

  • since it's the only thing left, but only within the interests

  • of the isolated community.

  • However, I'm sorry to say, this tribalism can easily

  • be turned around against other forces in the same logic.

  • I'm sure there was great camaraderie and interpersonal support occurring

  • with the 10 million strong Nazi army

  • but that nationalist cohesion also facilitated

  • one of the largest examples of social destruction

  • and division in the modern world.

  • On a different level, on a final note at this point

  • our economies are of scale and they're inherently international by nature.

  • They have to be. Patriotic nationalism has no place

  • in our technical, earthly reality on any level, especially in this regard.

  • The state as it exists is really an incredible reducer

  • of technical efficiency when it comes to supporting

  • the human population through production and the like.

  • The environmental respect as a whole is also lost

  • because of the boundaries that are set up.

  • It really slows down certain attributes and responsibilities inherently

  • having these walls up. It's not economically efficient.

  • It doesn't gravitate towards actually being responsible

  • towards your environment, and I think we're beginning to see those issues

  • even more so today, on multiple levels.

  • Same premise: Even today the idea of 'made in America'

  • (I even saw a 'made in Israel' while I was here)

  • it's a common mantra for commerce advertising now.

  • Yet, that intention is of an immediate technical inefficiency

  • for proper good production is inherently a global affair on all levels

  • including the usufruct of world knowledge.

  • Everyone is contributor to the knowledge; there's no isolated knowledge;

  • it's impossible to assume that only your country could produce isolated things.

  • It's an organism of knowledge that continues to evolve.

  • In the truest sense of the word, economy can not have boundaries

  • and restrictions. It's simply too inefficient.

  • You can operate that way, but you're not actually

  • operating in the true sense of earthly management

  • which is what an economy is, hence the reduction of waste.

  • Patriotic nationalism is not only dangerous, it's technically inefficient.

  • True social cohesion can only truly be sustained

  • on the human scale globally, with our loyalties to each other, the habitat

  • and the natural laws of nature, a technical reality, not a poetic one.

  • Otherwise, you will have nothing but conflict, inefficiency and degradation

  • which is exactly what we have now.

  • In the words of Albert Einstein "Nationalism is an infantile disease:

  • It is the measles of mankind."

  • [Applause]

  • Part Three: A Culture of War, Business Ownership and Competition

  • In the prior section, we ran through some core characteristics of the state entity.

  • Now I would like to express the obvious

  • yet grossly overlooked foundational premise of its existence

  • which underscores the logic of all of its characteristics denoted.

  • When we reflect on the core values of the state

  • and its interest in self-protection, coupled with the general propensity

  • for territoriality and commercial expansion

  • hence the rotating empires we've seen historically

  • we find that the core of the institution is really a culmination

  • born out of certain assumptions

  • namely those that define the foundation

  • of what we call modern economics today

  • or specifically market economics today.

  • I would like to first point out that when attempting to speak empirically

  • I see no merit in such terms as capitalism or the free market

  • or socialism or communism or any other 'ism' notions

  • which really serve as limits of debate

  • in the discussion of social operation, as they represent a truncated

  • frame of reference with respect to our economy and what an economy means.

  • The real foundational premise

  • of all of those traditional institutions goes back much farther in time

  • than any traditional economic theorist would admit.

  • What we find is that the evolution of the economic system we know today

  • has been in lockstep with the ongoing evolution of the state entity.

  • If we want to diagnose what it is that initiates war, subjugation

  • and territorial disputes along with a possible resolution for global peace

  • we need to step back much farther and examine the very fabric

  • of where our life-support and dominant personal

  • and social values are derived.

  • As noted earlier, the Neolithic Revolution was a powerful turning point

  • for the manner in which human society organized itself.

  • With the sudden, then hidden understanding of scientific causality

  • slowly emerging, our newfound ability to control our environment

  • and strategically produce more than was available before

  • brought about the advent of a producer class

  • and the active trade itself eventually as labor specialization

  • became a normal, fixed part of the socioeconomic model.

  • This new basis of social organization then eventually advanced

  • into the use of symbols to represent the exchange value

  • of a producer's good, in the act of trade, known as money

  • which in effect was the introduction

  • of a new commodity in and of itself, an abstraction.

  • This inherent monetary value

  • an abstract notion of value of paper

  • (even with the gold standard, it was still abstract)

  • led to the concept of investment.

  • Labor slowly became more and more centralized

  • as the corporation or plant was owned

  • and facilitated by the investor class that dealt with the money

  • in and of itself, that could buy the producer.

  • Then, as the natural advancement in science and technology

  • slowly reduced the need for humans as a producer (mechanization)

  • of all the new novel concepts of service and production

  • for the sake of maintaining the now established labor system

  • a transformation has occurred where that original role of the person

  • has deviated from being a producer harnessing direct trade

  • for personal interest, to a vehicle of servitude, to the interests

  • of the investment and ownership class.

  • Today, as a consequence, the most rewarded form of social participation

  • which actually has zero bearing on the life-support processes

  • of the original, economic premise itself, is investment.

  • As will be reiterated in a moment, this consequential ownership class

  • is what currently runs the world, colloquially speaking.

  • Sociologist Thorstein Veblen summarizes this issue

  • from a slightly different angle, but in a very acute way:

  • "The standard theories of economic science have assumed the rights of property

  • and contract as axiomatic premises and ultimate terms of analysis

  • and their theories are commonly drawn in such a form

  • as would fit the circumstances of the handicraft industry and petty trade."

  • What he means by that are the simplistic notions of the producer

  • early on before modern technology.

  • "These theories appear tenable on the whole when taken to apply

  • to the economic situation of that earlier time

  • in virtually all that they have to say on questions of wages, capital

  • savings, the economy and the efficiency of management and production

  • by the methods of private enterprise resting on these rights of ownership

  • and contract and governed by the pursuit of private gain.

  • It is when these standard theories are sought to be applied to the later situation

  • which has outgrown the conditions of handicraft

  • that they appear nugatory and meretricious.

  • The competitive system, which these standard theories assume

  • as necessary conditions of their own validity

  • and about which they are designed to form a defensive hedge

  • would, under those earlier conditions of small-scale enterprise

  • and personal contract, appear to have both a passively valid assumption

  • as a premise and a passably expedient scheme

  • of economic relations and traffic. " He continues

  • "Under that order of handicraft and petty trade

  • that led to the standardization of these rights of ownership

  • in the accentuated form which belong to them in the modern law and custom

  • the common man had a practicable chance of free initiative

  • and self-direction in his choice in pursuit of an occupation and livelihood

  • in so far as rights of the ownership bore in his case.

  • The complexion of things as touches the effectual bearing

  • of the institutional property in the ancient customary rights of ownership

  • has changed substantially.

  • The competitive system has in great measure ceased to operate

  • as a routine of natural liberty, in fact; particularly insofar as touches

  • the fortunes of the common man, the impecunious mass of people."

  • He then goes on to elaborate why. This is the most critical point

  • "At least in the popular conception and presumably in some degree also in fact

  • the right of property so served as a guarantee of personal liberty

  • and a basis of equality and so its apologists

  • still look on the institution.

  • In a very appreciable degree, this complexion of things

  • and of popular conceptions has changed since then.

  • Although, as would be expected, the change in popular conceptions

  • has not kept pace with the changing circumstances.

  • On the transition to machine technology, the plant became a unit of operation

  • and control has clearly come to be not the individual or isolated plant

  • but rather an articulated group of such plants working together

  • as a balanced system (a. k.a. corporation)

  • under a collective business management and coincidentally

  • the individual workmen has been falling into the position of an auxiliary factor

  • nearly into that of an article of supply

  • to be charged up as an item of operating expense

  • so that at this point the right of ownership has ceased to be

  • in fact, a guarantee of personal liberty to the common man

  • and has come to be, or is coming to be, a guarantee of dependence."

  • He wrote that in 1917

  • to avoid a seeming divergence

  • on the broad flaws of the monetary market economy in general

  • keeping in pace with a specific focus of war, the state

  • and as evolution from this core economic foundation.

  • This point by Veblen is critical to understand

  • as it underscores what is the growth

  • of an abstract economic premise of ownership

  • with a shift of power from the general worker/producer class

  • to the investment and ownership business class

  • which are in effect a detrimental perversion

  • of the producer concept, the very basis of the original theory

  • as these people literally contribute nothing

  • to the technical artistic and scientific basis of common industry;

  • yet, they are now the focal point of interest.

  • Amazingly enough, due to the power now yielded

  • by this ownership investment class

  • we have a state entity which not only operates

  • as a manifestation of those values of competition and ownership

  • but pulls the majority of its governance constituents

  • from the very same wealth, business and operation pool.

  • Surprise, surprise!

  • These values also create and perpetuate a legal system

  • which works to benefit not only the interests of the ownership class

  • but also the interest of its expansion

  • which is a trademark of the capital business venture

  • which manifests into the monopolistic, imperialist tendency

  • that defines a pivotal characteristic of the large state.

  • Like business monopoly in the commercial world

  • the larger in size the establishment

  • the more it tends to want to increase its size.

  • It's a basic business acumen.

  • On this issue of ownership and hence its inevitable morphing

  • into the governance class, Veblen states

  • "The responsible officials and their chief administrative officers

  • so much as may at all reasonably be called the government or the administration

  • are invariably and characteristically drawn from these beneficiary classes:

  • nobles, gentleman or businessmen

  • which all come to the same thing for the purpose in hand;

  • the point of it all being that the common man does not come

  • within these precincts and does not share in these councils

  • that are assumed to guide the destiny of the nations."

  • He adds with respect to the legislative legal orientation

  • to which these beneficiary classes defined by the ownership investment values

  • are in control of

  • "It may confidently be counted on that all the apparatus of law

  • and all the coercive agencies of law and order will be brought in requisition

  • to uphold the ancient rights of ownership

  • whenever any more is made toward their disallowance or restriction.

  • There is a strong and stubborn interest bound up

  • with the maintenance of pecuniary faith (that means money)

  • and the class in whom this material interest vests are also in effect

  • invested with the coercive powers of the law"

  • which means you're double screwed.

  • Put another way, those factors that enable the upper and ownership class

  • which have been codified by the near religious acceptance

  • of the rights of property, trade and exploitation

  • as the practice of social governance

  • are reinforced by the direct legal governance via the very same constituency

  • that benefits the most by the economic system itself and all its inefficiency.

  • When it comes to the state initiation of war

  • it does not take a lot of ingenuity to understand the multilevel commercial

  • and financial interests that are really behind it, especially now.

  • It's bad enough that the basic nature

  • of the culmination of the state institution is economic

  • self-preserving and exploitative in general

  • but when the event-to-event wars are taken into account

  • and the specifics of those who gained and those who've lost are figured

  • a whole new level of predatorialism emerges

  • an entirely new level of disgust emerges.

  • In the past, the basic stealing of land and its inherent resources

  • were more or less the central benefit of state wars.

  • Today, we can extend these economic benefits

  • to the massive military expenditures

  • that have huge impacts on GDP and trade

  • the reconstruction of war-torn areas by the conquering

  • state commercial subsidiaries

  • the slow prodding of a country's integrity through trade tariffs

  • debilitating sanctions and debt impositions

  • for the sake of population subjugation

  • for the benefit of transnational industries

  • and many other modern conventions which universally

  • benefit mostly a very small number of people

  • and again, the ownership and investment classes.

  • This point was most likely best expressed

  • by one of America's most decorated Army officers of the 20th century

  • Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler. He wrote a book after World War I

  • called 'War Is a Racket'.

  • He had this to say about the industry of war

  • "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest

  • easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious.

  • It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one

  • in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

  • I spent 33 years and 4 months in active military service

  • and during that period I spent most of my time as a high-class muscle man

  • for big business: for Wall Street and the bankers.

  • In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

  • I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe

  • for American oil interests in 1914.

  • I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place

  • for the national city bank boys to collect revenues in.

  • I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics

  • for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua

  • for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1902 to 1912.

  • I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916.

  • I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903.

  • In China, in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil

  • went on its way unmolested.

  • Looking back at it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints.

  • The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts;

  • I operated on three continents."

  • It's amazing!

  • [Applause]

  • I'd like to conclude this section by pointing out

  • that this analysis is taking a very broad view

  • for the sake of the global audience that this lecture hits

  • and the relevance as it is in its broadest scheme.

  • War, while its core historic drive is indeed economic

  • can also have the direct force of ideology, crusade

  • and moral right as a central motivator

  • not only with respect to public sanction as noted before

  • but also as an active component of the motivation on the state level.

  • However, this is the exception, not the rule.

  • Even with the ostensibly driven, religious foundation

  • of the state of Israel, and the assumed divine right it has

  • as a backdrop for its claim of ownership against Palestine

  • the deciding factors are still to be found

  • as economic in operation at the core level.

  • As will be noted in the next section, peace will likely not come

  • from the interaction of any state

  • or any level of governance by the ownership class, the beneficiary class.

  • It will come from the people, its subjects...

  • [Applause]

  • who will work to transcend the power of the statehood entirely

  • realizing that the human level of loyalty

  • is the only possible perspective.

  • [Applause]

  • Part Four: Defining Peace - A New Social Contract

  • As we all know peace today is not defined by an amiable reconciliation

  • of differences in larger efforts for collaboration.

  • No, peace today is defined by competitive armament

  • and the general premise of 'mutually assured destruction'

  • as was coined with respect to the Cold War.

  • Peace today is now only a mere pause between conflicts

  • on the stage of global civilization.

  • There is a war going on somewhere virtually all the time.

  • When there isn't, the major powers are busy scuffling

  • moving their little tanks in the sand, building more advanced weapons

  • selling off old ones to some other allied country

  • who are basically posturing in the same way

  • all under the name of not only protection, but good business as well.

  • Military establishments today have at their disposal

  • the most advanced proprietary forms of technology

  • employing some of the best scientists on the planet

  • in this venture for orchestrated death.

  • When we consider the exponential increase of information technology

  • occuring in the world, which facilitates greater and greater levels

  • of material/technical advancement and the advancement of weaponry

  • the realization is that the incalculable levels of possible human

  • and planetary destruction possibly awaits us.

  • In the words of Albert Einstein

  • as he witnessed the expression of the atomic bomb

  • "Our technology has exceeded our humanity."

  • The question to be asked is are we as a society mature enough

  • to handle the incredible possibilities

  • for our new technological advancement?

  • Technology, which could also benefit the world in profound ways

  • or will our divisive, xenophobic, tribal state premises

  • and economic selfishness prevail?

  • At least in the past, social immaturity, the prevalence of territorialism

  • and dominance had a limited cost, but we have nanotech weapons

  • that will eventually make the atomic bomb look like a Roman catapult

  • a new level of social awareness and responsibility needs to arise, and quickly

  • for this is no longer an issue of national security.

  • It is an issue of world security.

  • To paraphrase one of my heroes Carl Sagan, an American astronomer

  • and avid proponent of scientific thought and its application to society

  • "It's almost as though there is a God and he gives us a choice.

  • We can use our emerging technological abilities to improve the lives of the human species

  • and create an abundance where no one needs to starve or be deprived

  • or we can create a greater means to destroy ourselves.

  • It's our choice."

  • Our global economic system is based on a social Darwinism

  • which assumes that if everyone looks out only for their self-interest

  • often at the expense of others

  • who are basically seeking the same thing in theory

  • a larger order, social balance will magically occur.

  • This is the foundational meta-magic philosophy

  • of figures such as the father of the free-market Adam Smith

  • and his notion of 'the invisible hand'

  • but things have changed.

  • We've reached the point where our personal self-interest

  • now desperately needs to become social interest

  • if we expect to survive the many trials ahead of us.

  • Our evolutionary fitness is now becoming a social imperative

  • not a personal, self-interested one.

  • Our self-interest must become social interest if we expect to survive

  • because they are actually one of the same

  • if you really follow the logic.

  • Either we become a globally conscious, singular society

  • with respectable core values on the fundamental level, or we perish.

  • Either we change or we die.

  • Today the US, Israel and other extensions of empire

  • are prodding the states of Iran and Syria growing more and more close

  • to a provocation over energy resources

  • other acts of commerce, geopolitical, geoeconomic control

  • of coveted Eurasia as Brzezinski pointed out 15 years prior.

  • The recent withdrawal of US troops from Iraq has now freed up some resources

  • and given that most presidential campaigns

  • tend to persevere in re-election of the incumbent president

  • it would not surprise me at all if we see conflict emerge

  • before the 2012 US elections.

  • However, Iran is not Iraq. It is in tight economic balance with Russia and China

  • the two other superpowers, with enormous military capacity.

  • It is not out of the question to foreshadow that any invasion of Iran

  • will quickly generate a global destabilization of power

  • to which something of a world war could commence.

  • If you examine the military expenditure of the large powers

  • you will see an upward curve, accelerating in most cases over the past decade.

  • Military trade agreement of these powers, such as the recent selling of

  • $30 billion of arms to Saudi Arabia, revealing a growing intent.

  • On the other side Russia continues to sell arms to Syria

  • another state in the crosshairs of the US empire.

  • Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov stated in mid-January of this year

  • during his annual televised press conference

  • that Russia would use its veto at the UN Security Council

  • to block any resolution calling for military force to be used against Syria

  • also saying that Russia is 'seriously worried'

  • that military action against Iran would be under consideration

  • and vow that Moscow would do all it could to prevent it.

  • "The consequences will be extremely grave" he said.

  • "It will trigger a chain reaction and I don't know where it will stop."

  • Likewise in late 2011, a Chinese Maj. Gen. commented

  • "China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a third world war"

  • according to NDTV, a Chinese news station.

  • These reactions make sense since Iran is a key energy component

  • and deeply engrained in the geo-economic interests of those powers in the region.

  • In the end, who will suffer from the interests of these state...

  • these state interventions, the imperialism

  • and even the fighting of it and lack of reconciliation

  • (because it's imperialism on all sides if you think about it.

  • The motivations are equally the same. )? The people will.

  • Possibly on a tragic scale, especially given

  • the growing automation of military adventures

  • where less people are now needed with such drone aircrafts

  • that can be remotely controlled from thousands of miles away

  • engaging in combat without direct military loss on their end.

  • I won't even go into the direct loss of empathy

  • which implies that further cold violence is on the horizon

  • because people are detaching themselves from the act of murder

  • through automated means. I think Dr. James Gilligan put it best

  • "In the past, throughout nearly all of human history

  • the main threat to human survival is nature. Today, it's culture."

  • Therefore, not only does direct, traditional protest need to persist

  • in the limited capacity it has

  • but it's time for the people of the world begin to form a new alliance

  • that challenges not only the drug-addict behavior-like sickness

  • of the state establishment and its endless juvenile, competitive war incentive

  • but also get down to the root of its causal nature

  • which is the monetary market system of economics

  • and its metaphysic notions of wealth, property

  • power, trade, ownership and competition.

  • In the words of Thorstein Veblen from 1970

  • "It has appeared in the course of the argument

  • that the preservation of the present pecuniary law and order

  • with all its incident of ownership and investment

  • is incompatible with an unwarlike state of peace and security.

  • This current scheme of investment, business and (industrial) sabotage

  • should have an appreciably better chance of survival in the long run

  • if the present conditions of warlike preparation

  • and national 'insecurity' were maintained

  • or if the projected peace were left in a somewhat problematic state

  • sufficiently precarious to keep national animosities alert

  • and thereby to the neglect of domestic interests

  • particularly of such interests as touch the public well-being.

  • So, if the projectors of this peace-at-large are in any degree inclined

  • to seek concessive terms on what the peace might hopefully be made enduring

  • it should evidently be part of their endeavors from the outset

  • to put effects in train

  • for the present abatement (stopping) and eventual abrogation (ending)

  • of the rights of ownership and of the price system

  • to which these rights take effect."

  • To restate, peace is not characteristic

  • of the current model of economic practice. The question then becomes:

  • What form of economic model (if there even is one) would

  • inherently reward a state of peace by its very construct?

  • As the scientific method of reasoning has made its way into everyday life

  • with the slow dissipation of superstition across the world

  • (at least with respect to social organization)

  • a powerful new train of thought is emerging.

  • This train of thought places the basis of economy

  • on the principles of natural physical law

  • and not the inventive whims of prior, primitive assumptions of human behavior

  • and other false dualities and things that are baggage from our evolution.

  • It is in this work that The Zeitgeist Movement finds its calling.

  • The revolution of our economic premise from superstitious to scientific

  • will not only transcend the grand failure of war

  • the state power neurosis as well

  • while overcoming the grand inefficiencies associated. It will enable

  • and reinforce a world of human betterment beyond anything we've ever seen.

  • Environmental and social respect (which is desperately needed)

  • and a material abundance that our technology could create

  • if we decided to allow it to

  • something that the world has never seen.

  • Just as we had a great social paradigm shift after the Neolithic Revolution

  • we are on the edge of an equally strong shift of consciousness

  • as we inch into an age of post-scarcity and global collaboration.

  • Today there is no technical reason for any human being to starve

  • to be without housing or clothes, to not have advanced education

  • and high public-health, both physical and mental.

  • If we can transcend this dark period which we currently reside

  • future civilizations will surely look back in horror

  • at the enormous insanity of our actions, fears and arrogance.

  • Perhaps a new term will be coined to describe the age that we live in.

  • I would suggest 'The Age of Ignorance'.

  • In conclusion, I'll make one final point with respect

  • to the overcoming of this war machine.

  • It will not come from the state or as they say 'speaking truth to power'

  • nor will it come via the ownership investment classes that control it

  • that have engineered the function of society as we see it.

  • World peace will come from a global rise in public solidarity

  • on the human civilian level and it will come from

  • a mass rejection of the distorted values

  • and manipulation tactics coming from the state and its commercial values.

  • It will come from a worldwide movement, absent borders

  • racial notions or political or religious parties

  • to be based rather on the immutable common ground we all share as a species

  • which simply says "No, we are not going to play this game anymore."

  • As the world is falling apart around us with the growing unemployment

  • the resource depletion, the boundless debt expansion

  • and collapse pressure, all of which could further fuel

  • the motivation for international warfare, as history has shown

  • there is likely no greater time in modern history

  • than to stand up and begin to do something in a very active way.

  • 1% of the world stand in control

  • of over 99% of the population, in the broadest concept.

  • I really personally can't wait to see the look on their faces

  • when the 99% realize how much power they really have.

  • [Applause]

  • In conclusion, in the immortal words of Carl Sagan

  • "The old appeals to racial, sexual, religious chauvinism

  • to rabid nationalist fervor are beginning not to work.

  • A new consciousness is developing which sees the Earth as a single organism

  • and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed."

  • We are one planet. Thank you.

  • [Applause]

  • www.thezeitgeistmovement.com

Shalom!

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it