Political Races and Military Conflicts
January 7, 2012 in World
I have received some criticism because this site has spent so much time covering financial issues and almost no time at all covering military conflicts and political races. Some people have questioned my patriotism, my sense of urgency, and my opinion of what is important. They have made guesses about my motivation.
Therefore, I’ll use this article to explain how I choose my topics as well as defining urgent and important. You may still question my patriotism, my sense of urgency, and my opinion of what is important. However, you will no longer have to guess about my motivation.
My motivation is a peaceful response. A peaceful response never comes from an urgent reaction. It comes from weighing the important things.
Military conflicts and political races, as used today, are urgent, panic-filled events that seldom weigh important matters and, even when they do, they only give them lip service. Therefore, I don’t give military conflicts and political races much attention. In the past, we used these events to make decisions and determine the direction of the world. This changed at the end of World War II.
Now, these are business decisions made within a corrupt system. While they have the power to destroy our world, they can only do so if we submit to the argument that the urgency of these events makes them important.
For these urgent events to appear important, there must be marketing to convince us. Slogans like “war on terrorism” and “weapons of mass destruction” are used to work people into a frenzy so they will support state-supported murder for the purpose of business and think it is the advancement of democracy.
Political races and military conflicts have lost their power because they are no longer change agents. A war takes place and the world remains the same. A new political party steps into office and problems remain unresolved. Therefore, urgency must be used to get attention while distracting us from the important issues.
The most important issue, from my perspective, is that a significant part of the world lives in poverty when we have enough resources throughout the world to prevent this.
Instead, we create urgent issues that allow the fighting to continue.
We select a country (currently Iran) to be our enemy. We claim they are creating nuclear missiles. We claim they are a threat to democracy. We claim they are a threat to the world’s oil distribution. Therefore, it is urgent to bomb that country.
Is it?
How do we know?
Do we know because a couple of news sources reports it and a government spokesperson quotes those sources?
Or, is it possible that the goal of bombing Iran is to destabilize their financial system and set up a central bank run by the same people who run the Federal Reserve and the International Monetary Fund?
With a little research, I found just as many arguments for the military reason for bombing Iran as I did the financial one.
The screaming about threats and danger makes war urgent. We respond emotionally. We forget about the important things.
The important things like love, sustenance, acceptance, negotiation.
On 9/11, approximately three thousand Americans died. There was an urgent call for patriotism.
In the war to retaliate for those attacks, more than thirteen thousand Americans died. In addition, there were more than 1.5 Million Iraqi deaths. These numbers don’t include the death count in Afghanistan.
These people died as the result of an urgency myth perpetuated upon the American people and the world. Obviously, something other than retaliation for 9/11 was going on there.
My perspective is that it is more important to understand what is really going on before we urgently start loading up the planes with missiles to bomb the next country.
Therefore, I write about the important while I downplay the urgent.
I’ll continue this thought tomorrow.
