Friday 18th of July 2025
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

action and reaction: fighting back against the empire....

VLADIMIR PUTIN RECENTLY EXPRESSED HIS VIEWS THAT FOR MANY YEARS HE THOUGHT THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE WEST WAS IDEOLOGICAL, BUT HE HAS RECENTLY "DISCOVERED" THAT IT IS NOTHING ELSE BUT GEOPOLITICAL….

ON THIS SITE, WE HAVE EXPLORED THIS SINCE THE BEGINNING… THE IDEAL OF DEMOCRACY IS ONLY A TINY PART IN THE GAME OF MARKING AND EXTENDING ONE’S TERRITORY LIKE A MALE DOG COCKING UP A HIND LEG… SEE NETANYAHU...

THIS IS WHERE WE SEE THE HOAX OF THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN BECOME REALITY… THIS HOAX ACTUALLY REVEALED THE TRUE INTENT OF THE GOVERNMENTS, AS PEACE IS A HINDRANCE — ESPECIALLY FOR THE USA…:

THERE IS NO NEED TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES OF ANY REPORTS BY THE WAR-MINDED MODERN THINK-TANKS:

 

 

Economic analyses of the anticipated problems of transition to peace have not recognized the broad pre-eminence of war in the definition of social systems. The same is true, with rare and only partial exceptions, of model disarmament "scenarios." For this reason, the value of this previous work is limited to the mechanical aspects of transition. Certain features of these models may perhaps be applicable to a real situation of conversion to

peace; this will depend on their compatibility with a substantive, rather than a procedural, peace plan. Such a plan can be developed only from the premise of full understanding of the nature of the war system it proposes to abolish, which in turn presupposes detailed comprehension of the functions the war system performs for society. It will require the construction of a detailed and feasible system of substitutes for those functions that

are necessary to the stability and survival of human societies.

 

The Functions of War

The visible, military function of war requires no elucidation; it is not only obvious but also irrelevant to a transition to the condition of peace, in which it will by definition be superfluous. It is also subsidiary in social significance to the implied, nonmilitary functions of war; those critical to transition can be summarized in five principal groupings.

 

1. Economic. War has 'provided both ancient and modern societies with a dependable system for stabilizing and controlling national economies. No alternate method of control has yet been tested in a complex modern economy that has shown itself remotely comparable in scope or effectiveness.

 

2. Political. The permanent possibility of war is the foundation for stable government; it supplies the basis for general acceptance of political authority. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has ensured the subordination of the citizen to the state, by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood. No modern political ruling group has successfully controlled its constituency after failing to sustain the continuing credibility of an external threat of war.

 

3. Sociological. War, through the medium of military institutions, has uniquely served societies, throughout the course of known history, as an indispensable controller of dangerous social dissidence and destructive antisocial tendencies. As the most formidable of threats to life itself, and as the only one susceptible to mitigation by social organization alone, it has played another equally fundamental role: the war system has provided the machinery through which the motivational forces governing human behavior have been translated into binding social allegiance. It has thus ensured the degree of social cohesion necessary to the viability of nations. No other institution, or groups of institutions, in modern societies, has successfully served these functions.

 

4. Ecological. War has been the principal evolutionary device for maintaining a satisfactory ecological balance between gross human population and supplies available for its survival. It is unique to the human species.

 

5. Cultural and Scientific. War-orientation has determined the basic standards of value in the creative arts, and has provided the fundamental motivational source of scientific and technological progress. The concepts that the arts express values independent of their own forms and that the successful pursuit of knowledge has intrinsic social value have long been accepted in modern societies; the development of the arts and sciences during this period has been corollary to the parallel development of weaponry.

 

Substitutes for the Functions of War: Criteria

The foregoing functions of war are essential to the survival of the social systems we know today. With two possible exceptions they are also essential to any kind of stable social organization that might survive in a warless world. Discussion of the ways and means of transition to such a world are meaningless unless a) substitute institutions can be devised to fill these functions, or b) it can reasonably be hypothecated that the loss or partial loss of any one function need not destroy the viability of future societies.

Such substitute institutions and hypotheses must meet varying criteria. In general, they must be technically feasible, politically acceptable, and potentially credible to the members of the societies that adopt them. Specifically, they must be characterized as follows:

 

I. Economic. An acceptable economic surrogate for the war system will require the expenditure of resources for completely nonproductive purposes at a level comparable to that of the military expenditures otherwise demanded by the size and complexity of each society. Such a substitute system of apparent "waste" must be of a nature that will permit it to remain independent of the normal supply-demand economy; it must be subject to arbitrary political control.

 

2. Political. A viable political substitute for war must posit a generalized external menace to each society of a nature and degree sufficient to require the organization and acceptance of political authority.

 

3. Sociological. First, in the permanent absence of war, new institutions must be developed that will effectively control the socially destructive segments of societies. Second, for purposes of adapting the physical and psychological dynamics of human behavior to the needs of social organization, a credible substitute for war must generate an omnipresent and readily understood fear of personal destruction. This fear must be of a nature and degree sufficient to ensure adherence to societal values to the full extent that they are acknowledged to transcend the value of individual human life.

 

4. Ecological. A substitute for war in its function as the uniquely human system of population control must ensure the survival, if not necessarily the improvement, of the species, in terms of its relation to environmental supply.

 

5. Cultural and Scientific. A surrogate for the function of war as the determinant of cultural values must establish a basis of sociomoral conflict of equally compelling force and scope. A substitute motivational basis for the quest for scientific knowledge must be similarly informed by a comparable sense of internal necessity.

 

Substitutes for the Functions of War: Models

The following substitute institutions, among others, have been proposed for consideration as replacements for the nonmilitary functions of war. That they may not have been originally set forth for that purpose does not preclude or invalidate their possible application here.

 

1. Economic. a) A comprehensive social-welfare program, directed toward maximum improvement of general conditions of human life. b) A giant open-end space research program, aimed at unreachable targets. c) A permanent, ritualized, ultra-elaborate disarmament inspection system, and variants of such a system.

 

2. Political. a) An omnipresent, virtually omnipotent international police force. b) An established and recognized extraterrestrial menace. c) Massive global environmental pollution. d) Fictitious alternate enemies.

 

3. Sociological: Control function. a) Programs generally derived from the Peace Corps model. b) A modern, sophisticated form of slavery. Motivational function. a) Intensified environmental pollution. b) New religions or other mythologies. c) Socially oriented blood games. d) Combination forms.

 

4. Ecological. A comprehensive program of applied eugenics.


5. Cultural. No replacement institution offered. Scientific. The secondary requirements of the space research, social welfare, and/or eugenics programs.

 

Substitutes for the Functions of War: Evaluation

The models listed above reflect only the beginning of the quest for substitute institutions for the functions of war, rather than a recapitulation of alternatives. It would be both premature and inappropriate, therefore, to offer

final judgments on their applicability to a transition to peace and after. Furthermore, since the necessary but complex project of correlating the compatibility of proposed surrogates for different functions could be treated only in exemplary fashion at this time, we have elected to withhold such hypothetical correlations as were tested as statistically inadequate.

Nevertheless, some tentative and cursory comments on these proposed functional "solutions" will indicate the scope of the difficulties involved in this area of peace planning.

 

Economic. The social-welfare model cannot be expected to remain outside the normal economy after the conclusion of its predominantly capital-investment phase; its value in this function can therefore be only temporary.

The space-research substitute appears to meet both major criteria, and should be examined in greater detail, especially in respect to its probable effects on other war functions.

READ MORE: BUY THE BOOK "THE REPORT FROM IRON MOUNTAIN".....

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

war, war, war....

 

World War mastermind: Here’s America’s most dangerous person
Lindsey Graham’s insatiable bloodlust helps propel the world to move beyond a US-centric world order

BY Tarik Cyril Amar

 

Lindsey Graham is at it again: The long-serving – if increasingly embattled – senator from South Carolina has produced an especially aggressive as well as hysterical statement. This time, he has, in essence, threatened Russia with US bombing in a little less than two months from now.

If you know Graham’s record, then that may appear insane but also sort of unremarkable, because that’s just choleric, red-faced Lindsey having a normal rant. Yet there are reasons not to dismiss this particular tantrum too quickly. Even though Graham is probably too busy foaming at the mouth to notice, his latest hissy fit is unintentionally revealing.

For one thing, there’s a whiff of panic about this outburst. And Graham does have reasons to feel less than comfortable. For starters, as noted above, his seat in the Senate is anything but secure, with Graham facing what The Independent has called a “daunting challenge” coming up next year. Then, Graham will have to defend his seat – which he has held since 2003 – in midterms that could go badly for him.

His current approval rating in his home state is a squalid 34 percent. America’s MAGA base is, at best, ambiguous about the aging opportunist from South Carolina. That means that the most dangerous challengers to Graham are not Democrats but fellow Republicans who point out his very real selfishness and bottomless unreliability. President Donald Trump, it is true, has occasionally said a nice thing or two about Graham, but he has been at least equally friendly about one of his Republican challengers, businessman Andre Bauer.

One thing that voters at home hold against Graham is his prominent and extremely bellicose commitment to what most of us on planet Earth would call US imperialism but what Americans prefer to think of as “globalism.” That is what Bauer is going after, for instance. And for good reason: There really is no war of aggression, economic warfare campaign, information war drive, or lawfare offensive that the decidedly un-martial-looking Graham is not wildly, almost erotically enthusiastic about.

Graham loved the 2003 Iraq War, for instance, so much that even when he finally came to admit that it was based on “faulty intelligence” – a lie to cover for a lie, by the way: in reality, the war was based on deliberate deception – he still insisted it could have been worth it, as long as Iraq would turn into “a democracy.” That that is certainly not a thing the Iraqis could possibly learn from the American plutocracy, is a thought too honest to even cross Graham’s mind.

And, of course, Graham has always been a fervent, passionate, steamy Russophobe. Indeed, there is a way in which Moscow should be grateful for Graham. Like his European equivalent Kaja Kallas, the South Carolina senator is walking proof that the only thing that can, ultimately, secure Russia against Western warmongers in all-too-high places is military strength, including nuclear deterrence.

Indeed, Graham is so obsessed with sticking it to the Russians that his latest fetish is to not only assault Moscow but everyone who has any dealings with it. The most important aspect of the uber sanctions bill lovingly put together by Graham and his Democratic fellow traveler Senator Richard Blumenthal is the plan to “impose a 500 percent tariff on imported goods from countries that buy Russian oil, gas, uranium and other products.”

The idea is that these “sledgehammer” secondary sanctions would then do what the West has been trying and failing to do for years now: isolate Russia. They would not, obviously. If ever applied, this policy will only massively antagonize its targets – including Brazil, China, and India – and help to isolate the US, if anyone. Not to mention the immense economic damage it would inflict – in America, too.

NATO figurehead and Trump sock puppet Mark Rutte may not be able to grasp as much, but even the biggest bully in town can go too far and end up in that hole he’s been digging for others, as Russian Foreign Secretary Lavrov has just warned. China has already been explicit about not being impressed by Graham’s threats.

But there is another catch as well as another reason why Graham cannot feel secure: Trump’s own recent “turn” – if that really is the word – against Russia has, in reality, undermined the chances of the ultra-hardline approach encased in the Graham-Blumenthal bill being adopted. While Trump has been making noise, as he tends to, the Senate majority leader has quietly shelved Graham’s uber sanctions bill, at least for now. Graham, clearly, feels threatened: He is insisting that his pet bill must not be stopped.

It’s not, to be fair, as if Russia is receiving any special treatment from Graham. On the contrary, Graham is an all-round addict to bullying and violence. He clearly takes a sadistic pleasure in publicly fantasizing about dishing out brutality even in excess of what the US and its accomplices are already inflicting on their victims. Last year, for instance, he felt called upon to encourage Israel to complete its Gaza genocide by dropping nukes on the Palestinians.

And, of course, he is one of the all too many Americans who still steadfastly believe that Washington’s own dropping of atom bombs to massacre the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just fine. Not for Graham and his ilk to acknowledge what historians, such as Gar Alperovitz, have long shown: Japan was already defeated; the bombings were not only enormous war crimes – the crowning point of a massive campaign of mass-murderous urban fire-bombing – but gratuitous, even by the vicious logic of US air warfare; and they were the outcome of sheer bloodlust catalyzed by racism and a cynical strategy to threaten the Soviet Union, then, officially, still an ally of the US.

Graham also embodies another trait of US foreign policy to the point of absurdity: If you think being his target is bad, pray he’ll never try to be your “friend.” Ukraine has had that privilege, and he has been clear about why: to suck it dry, not only of people to be used up as cannon fodder in the great proxy war against Russia but also of its natural resources.

Indeed Graham’s commitment to slaughter and plunder abroad is so intense that some Americans – especially in that MAGA base again – are attacking him openly: Steve Bannon, the former Trump buddy and still a MAGA guru, has called Graham out over the latter’s endorsement of Ukraine’s “Spiderweb” attacks on Russia. Others have begun to suspect that Graham is receiving kickbacks from Ukraine’s corrupt “processing” of billions of US tax dollars. For now, these allegations are unproven, but they are still telling. Because it is likely that they will make sense to more and more Americans.

Lindsey Graham is a strange man, even by the standards of the US political elite. But what may be strangest about him is the mismatch between his enormous, relentless resentment and truculence, on one side, and his ever-lasting frustration on the other. Much of US policy is as vicious and pernicious as can be. Or, at least, as most of us can imagine. But for Graham it is never bad enough.

The irony is, of course, that the more America approaches the dystopian maximum of aggression Graham craves, the more the US is losing not only its standing (not much to lose there, really) but its reach. Graham is not simply the proverbial “ugly American.” He is the, quite literally, repulsive American – embodying a negative energy that helps propel the world to move beyond an order still far too much shaped by the US.

https://www.rt.com/news/621621-lindsey-graham-repulsive-american/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.