Tag: military industrial complex

How Did America Become Ruled By Its Military-Industrial Complex?

The U.S. Government spends on its military, annually, in not just its ‘Defense’ Department, but all of its departments taken together, around $1.5 trillion dollars.  (Much of that money is hidden in the Treasury Department and others, in order to convey to the public the false idea that ‘only’ around 800 billion dollars annually is now being spent for the U.S. military.)

On 25 April 2022, the Stockholm Internal Peace Research Foundation (SIPRI) headlined “World military expenditure passes $2 trillion for first time”, and reported that, “US military spending amounted to $801 billion in 2021, a drop of 1.4 per cent from 2020. The US military burden decreased slightly from 3.7 per cent of GDP in 2020 to 3.5 per cent in 2021.” However, they did not include the full U.S. figure, but only the portions of it that are being paid out by the U.S. ‘Defense’ Department. Consequently, a more realistic global total would have been around $2.8 trillion, which is around twice the approximately $1.5T U.S. annual military expenditure. All of the world’s other 172 calculated countries, together, had spent an amount approximately equivalent to that.

Prior to the creation by U.S. President Harry S. Truman of the U.S. ‘Defense’ Department, on 18 September 1947, replacing the U.S. War Department that had been created on 7 August 1789 by America’s Founders (shortly after the U.S. Constitution had become effective on 4 March 1789), the U.S. was a democracy — however flawed, but a real one, nevertheless.

The U.S. actually began its transformation into a dictatorship (serving the owners of the military corporations and of their extraction-corporate dependencies such as Chevron) when, on 25 July 1945, Truman decided that if the U.S. wouldn’t conquer the Soviet Union, then the Soviet Union would conquer the U.S., and, so, he started the Cold War, on that date, determined that his top priority as the U.S. President, would be to place the U.S. Government onto a virtually permanent war-footing, even though World War II against imperialistic fascisms (the “Axis” powers) was just about to end at that time, and would clearly be a victory for the U.S. allies — mainly, the Soviet Union, and the UK empire.

Truman, very much unlike his immediate predecessor, FDR, who had been a passionately committed anti-imperialist, had previously been on the fence about empires; but, going forward after that date, he would be totally committed to making the entire world into the first-ever single global empire, which would be in control over the entire planet by the U.S. Government and shared only by its ‘allies’ (vassal nations). That was Truman’s American dream, and it contrasted starkly against FDR’s dream of a future United Nations that would possess a global monopoly on all strategic weaponry and serve as a democratic global federal republic of all nations, each of which nation would have its own legal system for internal affairs, but all of which nations would be subject to the sole authority of the United Nations regarding all international matters. Truman despised FDR and got rid of FDR’s entire Cabinet and close advisors, within less than two years.

Truman enormously admired General Dwight Eisenhower, whose advice to him had clinched in Truman’s mind on 25 July 1945 that Winston Churchill was right that if the U.S. would not conquer the Soviet Union, then the Soviet Union would conquer the United States.

(Eisenhower, at the very end of his own Presidency, warned Americans against the military-industrial complex that Truman and he himself had jointly created. He was one of history’s slickest liars, and wanted history to remember him as having been a man of peace. He was actually just as much of an imperialist as Truman had been.)

And that decision, by Truman, on that date, is what placed the U.S. Government inexorably onto the path toward future rule by a military-industrial complex that would rape the U.S. Constitution — undo the most important achievement of America’s Founders.

Keep reading

“TOP GUN: MAVERICK” IS MILITARY PROPAGANDA. OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS PROVE IT

“Top Gun: Maverick” is a box-office smash, a massive hit with both critics and the public alike. Navy and Air Force units across the country have set up recruitment stalls inside movie halls, hoping to sign up individuals buzzed after watching the high-paced aviation action. But documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that the movie was made only after an agreement was signed between Hollywood and the Pentagon, with the Navy insisting on “weav[ing] in” their “key talking points” in exchange for granting the production company extensive access to military hardware.

Investigative journalist Tom Secker, author of “National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood,” was one of those who obtained the documents. Secker explained that “Top Gun: Maverick” was made with an explicit agenda behind it, telling MintPress:

It’s about rehabilitation of the military’s image in the wake of numerous failed wars. The film also helps foreground human pilots flying an actual combat mission – something very rare in these days of high-altitude airstrikes and drone warfare. It helps distract from all the drone pilots who’ve spoken out about the misery and horror inherent in that job.”

The sequel to the hit 1980s movie “Top Gun,” the new film follows the story of Pete “Maverick” Mitchell over 30 years later, as the renegade pilot who does not play by the rules is brought in to train the Navy’s best young pilots for a secret mission to blow up a uranium enrichment facility [a site implied to be in Iran]. Maverick instead shows that he is still the best pilot and is selected for the mission himself.

The production agreement between the Department of Defense (DoD) and Paramount Pictures is an explicit quid pro quo. In exchange for all manner of technical support and access to military equipment and personnel, the Pentagon was allowed to “[a]ssign a senior staff, post-command Officer to review with public affairs the script’s thematics and weave in key talking points relevant to the aviation community.”

Keep reading

Inside The Montauk Project, The US Military’s Alleged Mind Control Program

The Montauk Project just might be the motherlode of lesser-known conspiracy theories. Time travel, teleportation, and mind control are all integral to the story, while contact with aliens and the staging of Apollo moon landings add color to an already wild yarn. Yet even after all that and the fact that it inspired the Netflix series Stranger Things, relatively few have even heard of the Montauk Project story.

So how is it that the Montauk Project — which purports that shadowy elements of the U.S. military turned a pair of military installations on the far reaches of Long Island into a hub of illicit, chilling research into the paranormal — has gone overlooked?

Perhaps it’s because the story originated in sources that are dubious even by conspiracy theory standards. Though even if the Montauk Project itself is fiction — which it surely is — the Central Intelligence Agency’s documented history of disturbing experiments like the ones supposedly carried out at Montauk means that this theory will stay intriguing for the few who know it.

And with the popularity of Stranger Things firmly established, perhaps the Montauk Project’s time in the spotlight might finally be just around the corner.

Keep reading

Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s new investment fund deepens his ties to national security interests

Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt is an example of how you can shape public policy without ever running for office.

A few months ago, the revelation of Schmidt’s deep involvement with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy raised ethics concerns as some questioned if it was appropriate for a tech billionaire to fund a government office that advises the president on tech policy.

Now, Schmidt, who has long been a go-to liaison between the tech industry and the military, is expanding his influence over US national security by helping fund a new investment fund called America’s Frontier Fund (AFF), according to a report by the Tech Transparency Project (TTP), the research arm of the nonprofit ethics watchdog Campaign for Accountability.

America’s Frontier Fund isn’t your ordinary venture capital fund. In a leaked announcement draft obtained by TTP, AFF described itself as the first “public-private, deep-tech fund” in the US, meaning it would receive government funding alongside private money. After Recode followed up, the fund said the draft “was not approved and was never meant to be released. We do not describe ourselves that way. We only describe ourselves as a ‘non-profit deep tech fund.’”

Keep reading

HIV Status Will No Longer Automatically Disqualify Troops from Deployment, Retention

Most HIV-positive troops will no longer face involuntary separation or be barred from deploying as a result of their condition under an update to the Pentagon’s policy on HIV status.

According to a memo released by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on Tuesday, commanders no longer will be allowed to involuntarily separate troops with asymptomatic HIV. They also may not restrict them from deploying or bar any currently serving enlisted personnel, cadets or midshipmen with HIV from seeking a commission as an officer.

HIV, however, will continue to be a disqualifying condition for enlistment or commissioning for those not currently serving, meaning HIV-positive persons interested in joining the U.S. military still may not, regardless of whether their viral load is deemed low enough to not be transmissible.

Keep reading

US To Sell Ukraine Advanced Drones Armed With Hellfire Missiles In Coming Days

Despite a mere days ago President Biden pledging in a New York Times op-ed that under his watch the United States would ensure it avoids supplying the Ukrainians with weapons which could penetrate deep inside Russian territory, given the potential for wider war with Russia, the White House is now said to be mulling the transfer of multiple MQ-1C Gray Eagle drones which can be armed with Hellfire missiles.

Reuters, citing unnamed sources, reports the Biden administration has notified Congress of the potential sale within “the coming days”. If it goes through, the sale would mark the largest and most sophisticated drones in Ukraine’s arsenal. It would also inch the US a bit closer toward President Zelensky’s prior request for the US and NATO to “close the skies” – or impose a No Fly Zone (NFZ) – despite Biden officials earlier admitting this would trigger automatic direct conflict with Russian.

The Pentagon is already supplying hundreds of AeroVironment’s Switchblade drones, which is a small, low-cost loitering munition or “suicide” drone. Ukraine has also already long deployed the Turkish-made Bayraktar, however, the General Atomics-made Gray Eagle is much faster and capable of carrying heavier munitions.

According to a brief comparative analsysis in Forbes,

The Gray Eagle carries up to four roughly 100-pound Hellfire missiles, whereas the Bayraktar can carry as many as four 49-pound laser-guided “smart micro” bombs.

Further, “The long-range model of the Gray Eagle drone is 28 feet long and can fly for over 41 hours with a top speed of about 173 miles per hour, while the Bayraktar is 21 feet long and can fly for 27 hours at up to 138 miles per hour.”

The potential transfer comes just as Biden authorized $700 million more in military aid to Ukraine. Reuters says the transfer is to include at least four Gray Eagle drones.

The Drive notes that with this type of advanced weapons system sale, there could be a few more hurdles along the way: “Typically a foreign military sale, even one financed by the U.S., as Reuters reports, has to be pre-approved by the State Department,” the report says.

And once again the Pentagon could be ordered by the administration to deplete its own crucial stockpile and arsenal in order to further arm the Ukrainians.

Keep reading

Slippery Slope: New U.S. Advanced Weapons for Ukraine

Peace advocates are warning that the Biden administration’s newly unveiled decision to arm Ukraine with advanced missile systems further heightens the risk of a direct military conflict between the U.S. and Russia, which accused the White House of “adding fuel to the fire deliberately” as Moscow’s deadly invasion of its neighbor rages on.

“The slippery slope leading to a direct U.S. confrontation with Russia just got a lot steeper,” Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the progressive anti-war group CodePink, wrote in response to the Biden administration’s move, which was followed by news that Russian forces are holding nuclear drills northeast of Moscow on Wednesday. “The U.S. and U.K. governments show no efforts or desire to achieve peaceful settlement of the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine.”

The U.S.-made High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, also known as HIMARS, will give Ukraine the capability to strike Russian targets roughly 50 miles away with powerful, satellite-guided missiles. The rocket system, the most advanced weaponry the U.S. has sent to Ukraine to date, is manufactured by Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest military contractor.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Pentagon has spent around $5.4 billion to buy more than 42,000 HIMARS rockets since 1998.

Keep reading

ELON MUSK IS NOT A RENEGADE OUTSIDER – HE’S A MASSIVE PENTAGON CONTRACTOR

Elon Musk’s proposed takeover of Twitter has ruffled many feathers among professional commentators. “Musk is the wrong leader for Twitter’s vital mission,” read one Bloomberg headline. The network also insisted, “Nothing in the Tesla CEO’s track record suggests he will be a careful steward of an important media property.” “Elon Musk is the last person who should take over Twitter,” wrote Max Boot in The Washington Post, explaining that “[h]e seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.” The irony of outlets owned by Michael Bloomberg and Jeff Bezos warning of the dangers of permitting a billionaire oligarch to control our media was barely commented upon.

Added to this, a host of celebrities publicly left the social media platform in protest against the proposed $44 billion purchase. This only seemed to confirm to many free speech-minded individuals that the South African billionaire was a renegade outsider on a mission to save the internet from authoritarian elite control (despite the fact that he is borrowing money from the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia in order to do so).

Musk has deliberately cultivated this image of himself: a real life Tony Stark figure who thinks for himself and is not part of the established order. But behind this carefully constructed façade, Musk is intimately connected to the U.S. national security state, serving as one of its most important business partners. Elon, in short, is no threat to the powerful, entrenched elite: he is one of them.

Keep reading