Home \|\| About KDR \|\| Weekly Feature Archive
The War On Prosperity Jeremiah - indoctriNATION \|\| April 19, 2006 War news is getting worse and worse. And now Canadians have a Warmonger-In-Chief of their own. Why? Why have we been dragged unwillingly into situations in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Iran is next). What are the real reasons for all of this death, thievery and destruction? That question is one that lingers somewhere just behind my eyeballs, refusing to be answered thus refusing to disappear. It is ultimately one of those problems, like “what is the meaning of life?” or “how many licks does it take to get to the centre of a Tootsie Pop?”, that will probably never be solved. But that doesn’t make it go away. There are many people who will tell you that war is just a natural part of human existence, something that has been there since The Dawn of Man. That may be true, but it doesn’t explain the motivations of the very small percentage of the human race that actually strive for war, and have the power to make it possible. Is it for the reason the war-designers provide: for self defence, or for democracy, equality, and prosperity? “War is peace,” they tell us, like they told Winston in George Orwell’s 1984. For those who don’t fall victim to this doublethink, and explore even a small sample of the evidence for themselves, it seems more likely the motives of those who keep us at war lie in the accumulation of wealth and control over resources and the power that goes with it. But there is something else. Maybe it is just unbridled incompetence, but doesn’t it seem like in the current case of Bush and Iraq, and now Harper and Afghanistan, they are doing everything they can to prolong war for as long as possible? Article Posted at www.KnowledgeDrivenRevolution.com Orwell’s idea’s in 1984, his political masterpiece about a dystopian, totalitarian society, seem particularly relevant today. Epecially those that seek to answer, at least partially, that question that keeps pinching a nerve inside my brain. He writes, From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process — by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute — the machine did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly over a period… But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction — indeed, in some sense was the destruction — of a hierarchical society…. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. So how do you make sure that prosperity and equality don’t get out of hand? Orwell: The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed…. In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another. Orwell tells us that the icing on the cake for these warmongers are the seemingly psychologically-friendly characteristics of war, or of the fear of war: And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival. War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society…. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. Will the enemies of prosperity succeed by failing? So far it seems to be working out for them. About KDR \| \| Home \| \| Weekly Features Archive	Weekly Weekly Features Archive
In Depth What Is Wrong With Canada Recent 9-11 News Suppressed by the Media The Number 1 Reason YOU became a Slave Knowledge Driven Look at Your Favourite Canadian Political Parties
Archive February March April 2006 26 27 28 29 30 31 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 01 02 03 04 05 06 Weekly Features

Home || About KDR || Weekly Feature Archive

The War On Prosperity

Jeremiah - indoctriNATION || April 19, 2006

War news is getting worse and worse. And now Canadians have a Warmonger-In-Chief of their own.

Why? Why have we been dragged unwillingly into situations in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Iran is next). What are the real reasons for all of this death, thievery and destruction?

That question is one that lingers somewhere just behind my eyeballs, refusing to be answered thus refusing to disappear. It is ultimately one of those problems, like “what is the meaning of life?” or “how many licks does it take to get to the centre of a Tootsie Pop?”, that will probably never be solved. But that doesn’t make it go away.

There are many people who will tell you that war is just a natural part of human existence, something that has been there since The Dawn of Man. That may be true, but it doesn’t explain the motivations of the very small percentage of the human race that actually strive for war, and have the power to make it possible.

Is it for the reason the war-designers provide: for self defence, or for democracy, equality, and prosperity? “War is peace,” they tell us, like they told Winston in George Orwell’s 1984.

For those who don’t fall victim to this doublethink, and explore even a small sample of the evidence for themselves, it seems more likely the motives of those who keep us at war lie in the accumulation of wealth and control over resources and the power that goes with it.

But there is something else. Maybe it is just unbridled incompetence, but doesn’t it seem like in the current case of Bush and Iraq, and now Harper and Afghanistan, they are doing everything they can to prolong war for as long as possible?

Article Posted at www.KnowledgeDrivenRevolution.com

Orwell’s idea’s in 1984, his political masterpiece about a dystopian, totalitarian society, seem particularly relevant today. Epecially those that seek to answer, at least partially, that question that keeps pinching a nerve inside my brain.

He writes,

From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process — by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute — the machine did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly over a period…

But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction — indeed, in some sense was the destruction — of a hierarchical society….

For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.

So how do you make sure that prosperity and equality don’t get out of hand?

Orwell:

The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed…. In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another.

Orwell tells us that the icing on the cake for these warmongers are the seemingly psychologically-friendly characteristics of war, or of the fear of war:

And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.

War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society….

It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist.

Will the enemies of prosperity succeed by failing? So far it seems to be working out for them.