FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

Joseph F Barber | Create Your Badge
This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.

To be GOVERNED

Not For Profit - For Global Justice and The Fight to End Violence & Hunger world wide - Since 1999
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801

This is the callout,This is the call to the Patriots,To stand up for all the ones who’ve been thrown away,This is the call to the all citizens ,Stand up!
Stand up and protect those who can not protect themselves our veterans ,the homeless & the forgotten take back our world today


To protect our independence, We take no government funds
Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country,You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.,


DISCOVER THE WORLD

Facebook Badge

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

The Free Thought Project,The Daily Sheeple & FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience are dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable. “Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.”
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” - George Orwell, 1984

"Until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned, everywhere is war and until there are no longer first-class and second-class citizens of any nation, until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes. And until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all without regard to race, there is war. And until that day, the dream of lasting peace, world citizenship, rule of international morality, will remain but a fleeting illusion to be pursued, but never attained... now everywhere is war." - - Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia - Popularized by Bob Marley in the song War

STEALING FROM THE CITIZENRY

The right to tell the Government to kiss my Ass Important Message for All Law Enforcers Freedom; what it is, and what it is not. Unadulterated freedom is an unattainable goal; that is what the founders of America knew and understood, which was their impetus behind the documents that established our great nation. They also knew that one of the primary driving forces in human nature is the unconscious desire to be truly free. This meant to them that mankind if totally left completely unrestricted would pursue all things in life without any awareness or acknowledgement of the consequences of his/her own actions leaving only the individual conscience if they had one as a control on behavior. This would not bode well in the development of a great society. Yet the founders of America chose to allow men/women as much liberty as could be, with minimum impact on the freedom or liberties of others

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

‘The Case Against Peace’: Elites Manipulating Domestic Society With War

‘The Case Against Peace’: Elites Manipulating Domestic Society With War


It is understandable why elites would think this way, but it does not stand up to scrutiny and exposes humanity to untold dangers.
Stephen Walt, a world famous professor of international relations, has presented an interesting ‘case against peace‘ that might explain some of the most recent trends in international affairs.
Walt presents an argument that essential says that a state of war allows for domestic social cohesion to occur, because:
When the wolf is at the door, domestic quarrels are put aside in order to deal with the more immediate danger.
George Simmel, a sociologist, is also quoted by Walt and proceeds to explain how, in his opinion, ‘peace time’ can lead to domestic unrest:
A group’s complete victory over its enemies is thus not always fortunate in a sociological sense. Victory lowers the energy which guarantees the unity of the group; and the dissolving forces, which are always at work, gain hold.
Walt explores the work of another political scientist, Michael Desch, who said:
The cold war was the ‘perfect’ type of threat. It never escalated to a major war … although it was serious enough to be a unifying factor.
Walt acknowledges that the 9/11 attacks created a similar unifying atmosphere, yet notes that it quickly collapsed after the true reality of the threat turned out to be based upon lies:
The threat from al Qaeda and its ilk is just not serious enough to galvanize the national unity that a genuine international rivalry produces.
Domestic terrorism continues to shock us, but it’s hard to rally the nation over the long term when the risk of dying in a terrorist incident is still about 1 chance in 4 million each year.
Walt concludes with this:
Reducing external dangers turns out to have a downside: The less threatened we are by the outside world, the more prone we are to ugly quarrels at home. Even worse, peace may even contain the seeds of its own destruction.
Now if we examine recent trends, we can see how this thesis is being applied.



Political elites have continued to shift their rhetoric in recent years to portraying Russia as the enemy of the Western world, and particularly the United States, in a way that we might see as attempting to produce that ‘genuine international rivalry’ that Walt speaks of.
Many believe that stoking domestic tensions is beneficial to those in control, and at a certain level it is, but domestic harmony is far more conducive to economic growth. The ‘police state takeover’ would be of massive short term gain to elites, but in reality it would be of little gain at all in the long term.
The rise of anti-Russian rhetoric in particular may be a drive towards implementing the ‘case against peace’, in order to keep a working population in motion and generating the massive economic activity that ultimately is the thing that keeps the US on top of everybody else.
There are however, some very worrying aspects of the ‘case against peace’ that Walt does not consider. The first is that a real threat does not necessarily incite mass social cohesion. The war in Vietnam was framed as a fight against the ‘real’ threat of communism, yet huge protests and massive social unrest occurred against it. Moreover, despite being in the height of the post-9/11 us-against-them mentality, London saw its biggest protest in history take place against the Iraq War.
Desch calls the Cold War the ‘perfect type of threat’, because ‘it never escalated into a major war’, but fails to mention that it very well could have done, which would have destroyed far more than just social cohesion and made a ‘normal life’ impossible for centuries to come.
It is also not necessarily true that it is only a threat from ‘the outside world’ that maintains domestic harmony. Why would we risk something that may escalate into a ‘major war’, when there are perhaps other ways of achieving social calm? In the Western world as it stands, most social unrest can be traced back to the fact that we have a massively unequal society – financially speaking. We might, instead of stoking conflict with an international, military super power like Russia, seek to create an economic reality that allows people to maintain a prosperous and fulfilling life.
Walt contends that the ‘case against peace’ means for:
A recurring cycle of conflict where periods of peace give way to new sources of tension and division.
This is the saddest part of the entire argument. We, as humans, need to find alternative means of dealing with our ‘sources of tension and division’ other than ‘a recurring cycle of conflict’ that the ‘case against peace’ advocates. Until we do that, we will be doomed to follow the mistakes of the past.

‘The Case Against Peace’: Elites Manipulating Domestic Society With War


It is understandable why elites would think this way, but it does not stand up to scrutiny and exposes humanity to untold dangers.
Stephen Walt, a world famous professor of international relations, has presented an interesting ‘case against peace‘ that might explain some of the most recent trends in international affairs.
Walt presents an argument that essential says that a state of war allows for domestic social cohesion to occur, because:
When the wolf is at the door, domestic quarrels are put aside in order to deal with the more immediate danger.
George Simmel, a sociologist, is also quoted by Walt and proceeds to explain how, in his opinion, ‘peace time’ can lead to domestic unrest:
A group’s complete victory over its enemies is thus not always fortunate in a sociological sense. Victory lowers the energy which guarantees the unity of the group; and the dissolving forces, which are always at work, gain hold.
Walt explores the work of another political scientist, Michael Desch, who said:
The cold war was the ‘perfect’ type of threat. It never escalated to a major war … although it was serious enough to be a unifying factor.
Walt acknowledges that the 9/11 attacks created a similar unifying atmosphere, yet notes that it quickly collapsed after the true reality of the threat turned out to be based upon lies:
The threat from al Qaeda and its ilk is just not serious enough to galvanize the national unity that a genuine international rivalry produces.
Domestic terrorism continues to shock us, but it’s hard to rally the nation over the long term when the risk of dying in a terrorist incident is still about 1 chance in 4 million each year.
Walt concludes with this:
Reducing external dangers turns out to have a downside: The less threatened we are by the outside world, the more prone we are to ugly quarrels at home. Even worse, peace may even contain the seeds of its own destruction.
Now if we examine recent trends, we can see how this thesis is being applied.



Political elites have continued to shift their rhetoric in recent years to portraying Russia as the enemy of the Western world, and particularly the United States, in a way that we might see as attempting to produce that ‘genuine international rivalry’ that Walt speaks of.
Many believe that stoking domestic tensions is beneficial to those in control, and at a certain level it is, but domestic harmony is far more conducive to economic growth. The ‘police state takeover’ would be of massive short term gain to elites, but in reality it would be of little gain at all in the long term.
The rise of anti-Russian rhetoric in particular may be a drive towards implementing the ‘case against peace’, in order to keep a working population in motion and generating the massive economic activity that ultimately is the thing that keeps the US on top of everybody else.
There are however, some very worrying aspects of the ‘case against peace’ that Walt does not consider. The first is that a real threat does not necessarily incite mass social cohesion. The war in Vietnam was framed as a fight against the ‘real’ threat of communism, yet huge protests and massive social unrest occurred against it. Moreover, despite being in the height of the post-9/11 us-against-them mentality, London saw its biggest protest in history take place against the Iraq War.
Desch calls the Cold War the ‘perfect type of threat’, because ‘it never escalated into a major war’, but fails to mention that it very well could have done, which would have destroyed far more than just social cohesion and made a ‘normal life’ impossible for centuries to come.
It is also not necessarily true that it is only a threat from ‘the outside world’ that maintains domestic harmony. Why would we risk something that may escalate into a ‘major war’, when there are perhaps other ways of achieving social calm? In the Western world as it stands, most social unrest can be traced back to the fact that we have a massively unequal society – financially speaking. We might, instead of stoking conflict with an international, military super power like Russia, seek to create an economic reality that allows people to maintain a prosperous and fulfilling life.
Walt contends that the ‘case against peace’ means for:
A recurring cycle of conflict where periods of peace give way to new sources of tension and division.
This is the saddest part of the entire argument. We, as humans, need to find alternative means of dealing with our ‘sources of tension and division’ other than ‘a recurring cycle of conflict’ that the ‘case against peace’ advocates. Until we do that, we will be doomed to follow the mistakes of the past.


No comments :