| Sorry for the poor editing but going through the writings of the “ideological architects of the Military Industrial Complex" again is both time consuming, and depressing. Especially since there is such zealous, and growing, support of the “Intellectual Founding Fathers” of the all-encompassing “Military Industrial Complex” here, as articles by them were shared in the original of this email. And as rebuttal of the China War-fevered New Right, now dba as “Right-wing Peaceniks, like something out of Clockwork Orange. And to rebut the New Right, and the Lies They Tell Us,” as they campaigned already for over a year in getting Trump reelected, or DeSantis elected, against their rival Goldwaterite, Biden. Which is how bad things truly are in this country, when we have a version of the 1964 election, and they’re all Goldwaterites. With all of them lying, for which someone needs to rebut, as I know Bill Polk would have.
Why do I waste my time writing this, when I doubt that anyone beyond someone who wants to argue against me in defending these war fanatics even reads what I write? My experience as a Guantanamo defense attorney and defender of Julian Assange, and rapt admirer of Daniel Ellsberg, and above all, adherence to Constitutional Law, to include at the top of the list, the First Amendment, which secures our “Right to Know,” leading to genuine “National Security,” that comes from an “Informed Citizenry,” especially since war fanatics like the CIA officers who founded the Conservative Movement did so much to disable that right, as do their bipartisan successors, on behalf of their Sainted National Security Officials, past and present, demands a rebuttal of their lies, dissimulations, and myth making. A duty we all should exercise as “alert citizens.” Which is one thing Susan Eisenhower said we must act as, as citizens, and the one thing that stuck out positively to me after she sanitized Eisenhower’s own culpability in building the MIC, though not even close to what his "enemies,” B, B, & K, did.
I just never imagined when I joined this list 12-13 years or so ago that 5 or 6 years later I would have to defend the Constitution, "Against it’s Enemies,” on this list. Let alone speak out against the fascists of our world today, as I have, the Israeli Settler National Conservative Yoram Hazony, his fascist partner Giorgia Meloni, the New Right of Trump, DeSantis; Biden now gone "Full-Goldwater,” and Tikvah, Kohelet, Hillsdale, Claremont, The American Conservative, and all the other Schmittian/Straussians, Peter Thiel backed, “paramilitary cognitive warfighters.” All of whom make up the the current "New Right,” and all engaged in the “Right-wing Revolution, succeeding the first one created by B, B, & K, as they’d called theirs as well. With a continuing need to rebut their lies, as they keep recurring here, and rebutting their lies that they’re right-wing “peace-niks,” in their zeal for war against China First! On May 7, 2023, at 7:27 PM, Todd Pierce <todd.e.pierce@icloud.com> wrote:
Good article but it begs the question: How did the Military Industrial Complex come into existence in the first place, as Eisenhower described it at the end of the 1950s? Did it just appear one day, to the chagrin of Eisenhower, and his “monolitic” Republican Party? Was it “liberals” like Adlai Stevenson who created an “ideology” of militarism suitable to build a Military Industrial Complex upon that as its “ideological infrastructure?” And was it over the "vigorous objections of Conservative Movement/Republicans, like Barry Goldwater (see attached file, the “The Conscience of a Conservative"),” as the Quincy Institute likes to assert now and again as pro-Republican campaign propaganda, echoing this absurd statement I chanced upon at a website (facetiously?) named "Conservative American Peaceniks:" "Supporting the traditional Republican foreign policy of peace, non-interventionism, and Constitution.” WTF! What country is that “Republican Party” in?
Not the US, as the party of Teddy Roosevelt has continuously incited, engaged in, or acted as “Occupation forces,” in U.S. wars since the end of the Civil War, until the present:
After the Civil War, they made their “peace” with Southern militarists, the supposedly defeated “Confederates” so celebrated by paleo-cons in magazines like Chronicles, and together they embarked upon “Perpetual War,” ever since. First against the “American Indigenous Peoples” (calling them that is an irritant to the “Radical-Right," I’ve just read in an article promoting “Conservative History” teaching), in the U.S. West, then the same against, again, “Indigenous Peoples,” overseas.
Begin with McKinley’s and Teddy Roosevelt’s “Pacification Wars” following our not altogether hostile takeover of much of Spain’s remaining Empire in 1898 ($20 million worth of “non-hostility” we paid to Spain, for Other People’s countries), and U.S. killing of any native, and non-native, resisters to that U.S. “hegemony.” Add in the Banana Wars, with the heavy hand of the Republicans in all of them, beginning under Teddy Roosevelt, and the Dominican Republic, which only under Wilson, was a Democrat involved as President, and pretty soon, you have "Republican Perpetual War.” Which lunatics call: "the traditional Republican foreign policy of peace, non-interventionism, and Constitution” 🤪
Add in the “War Preparedness” campaigns by Republicans before each of the World Wars, notwithstanding so-called “Isolationists” operating under a variety of mixed motives, not necessarily having anything to do with “high-minded constitutional principles,” and one begins to see how much the Republican Party has always immersed itself in the blood of its war victims. To include our own citizens whom they always demand go “marching off to wars of aggression,” before, and since, WW II, which I exclude.
That the Democrats are usually part of that, but seldom in the lead, though they’re elbow to elbow with Republicans today, stands as evidence that some of them share that same Goldwaterite Ideology, as we can call it today (see The Conscience of a Conservative, attached above), but also proof of how the “rotten apple spoils the barrel,” as one sees from the contagiousness of war fever. Which historically, if one actually researches it, or reads books of “actual history,” as opposed to Regnery (Comic, in my opinion) Books, has always been with Republicans as initial vectors of the “fever.” And especially with WW I, where Teddy Roosevelt “Led the Charge” of Republicans denouncing Wilson for not getting the U.S. in WW I immediately, in August 2014, and everyday thereafter as he tried so hard to do (see Justus D. Doenecke).
So non-intervionist my *ss! I have no obligation to stupefy myself, even if it means “playing well with others” here. War fanatics are what the authors of the attached papers have been, contrary to Republican/Conservative/New Right “revisionist,” propaganda!” Just read Andrew Bacevich’s book on "Conservatism” in which he celebrates and glorifies these extreme right-wing militarists/war fanatics, which he characterizes as “Conservative,” like this by Burnham from Bacevich’s panegyric to Conservatives:
When what these war fanatics (read the attachments) were, was in fact a combination of “Rousseauistic, Radical Conservative Revolutionary, hyper-militarists, which these CIA officers would serve up as the National Review centered, CIA oriented, Conservative Movement. As an ideological infrastructure for the Military Industrial Complex they, the Conservative Movement,” was engaged in helping give birth to.
None of which is to defend war-fevered Democrats, especially Biden, who obviously took too much away from Goldwaterism while sitting at the Master’s knee in the SSCI. And none of which is to say there aren’t Democrats equally as bad as the worst Republican, like Scoop Jackson was to Goldwater! But they aren’t the “ideological" founders of the MIC either.
In the the interest of my own “investigation” of “why” the MIC, and “why,” Guantanamo, and “why” Perpetual War, and applying my education as an “evidence based” (wow, “evidence," that’s a dirty word here, of “Left,” and “Right") political theorist, attorney, historian, and Army Officer, bolstered by what I learned from Bill Polk (who as head of the Adlai Stevenson Institute, would have been especially singled out and demonized as a "Liberal," by the war fanatics whose papers I have attached here), all I attempt to do in my criticism of war fanatics is to “isolate” and identify the “political theory” underlying their ideology, and the MIC. Which is a necessary first step if one is to counter the MIC, to go after its very “ideology,” or underlying “idea,” as one of these papers says of how “ideas” are what drives human acts 9though from the opposite perspective of my “anti-militarism."
this regard all this goes to prove, as “Best Evidence,” that what was advocated as Conservatism, would be the ideological infrastructure of the Military Industrial Complex, as its “political theory” remains today. Now exponentially expanded in influence by the “multiplier effect” of a successful Influence Operation which National Review began as, at the initial direction of B, B, & K.
What Next for the MIC? More than 60 years after Eisenhower identified the problem and gave it a name, the military-industrial complex continues to use its unprecedented influence to corrupt budget and policy processes, starve funding for non-military solutions to security problems, and ensure that war is the ever more likely “solution” to this country’s problems. The question is: What can be done to reduce its power over our lives, our livelihoods, and ultimately, the future of the planet? Countering the modern-day military-industrial complex would mean dislodging each of the major pillars undergirding its power and influence. That would involve campaign-finance reform; curbing the revolving door between the weapons industry and government; shedding more light on its funding of political campaigns, think tanks, and Hollywood; and prioritizing investments in the jobs of the future in green technology and public health instead of piling up ever more weapons systems. Most important of all, perhaps, a broad-based public education campaign is needed to promote more realistic views of the challenge posed by China and to counter the current climate of fear that serves the interests of the Pentagon and the giant weapons contractors at the expense of the safety and security of the rest of us. That, of course, would be no small undertaking, but the alternative — an ever-spiraling arms race that could spark a world-ending conflict or prevent us from addressing existential threats like climate change and pandemics — is simply unacceptable. From an earlier generation of “Right-wing Peaceniks” (sarcasm), now being “credited" as the precursors to Trumpism (which I agree with):
"Goldwater’s “wisdom (from “The Conscience of a Conservative:” "Moreover, it is clear that we cannot hope to match the Communist world man for a man, nor are we capable of furnishing the guns and tanks necessary to defend thirty nations scattered over the face of the globe. The long-overdue answer, as we will see later on, lies in the development of a nuclear capacity for limited wars.”
Anyone who says Goldwater wasn’t the nuclear-war madman his critics claimed he was, is either lying, or suffering from terminal stupidity, of any kind. If the hypothetical President in Dr. Strangelove had been based on Goldwater, it would have been a short movie, as between he, and the “LeMay” based Air Force officers, and Dr. Strangelove, would have escalated to Nuclear War almost immediately.
So what did Eisenhower think of the Merry Band of Conservatives, named here, and their original figurehead, Joe McCarthy? Here’s a couple clues:
But just try and get a Republican or Conservative admit that, as Susan Eisenhower would surely know, but seems to refrain from admitting, McCarthyism included Goldwater, and the Conservatives mentioned here, now held up as precursors to Trumpism, and models for Trumpism (and DeSantism) as it did. Nor did Republican Statecraft allow itself to ask Susan Eisenhower where the opposition to Eisenhower’s speech “The Chance for Peace” would have come from, which all of the aforementioned Conservatives would have bitterly opposed, and did denounce Eisenhower for, if indirectly.
But nary a mention of that though amidst “polite” Republican and Conservative circles!
From the article below: "One of the MIC’s most powerful tools is its ability to shape elite discussions on national security issues by funding foreign policy think tanks, along with affiliated analysts who are all too often the experts of choice when it comes to media coverage on issues of war and peace.”
In that, the CIA founders of the Conservative Movement/National Review were the "trailblazers,” along with Rand Corporation, with each having at their center “experts” in “Political/Psychological Warfare:” B, B, & K, at the heart of the National Review/Conservative Movement’s “Influence Operation,” and Hans Speier as Rand Corporations first hire in Social Sciences as a WW II “Propaganda Expert,” with both thereafter serving as template for future “think tanks.”
What can be done? Nothing, if the “problem” is approached from the “middle of the phenomena,” the “material side” of the matter, money, etc. None of what is suggested below is even realistic, because at this time, no one even has the “will” to make changes, so effective was the “Conservative Movement” in instilling a permanent “Hobbesianism” as “habit of mind” for the American people. "The question is: What can be done to reduce its power over our lives, our livelihoods, and ultimately, the future of the planet? "Countering the modern-day military-industrial complex would mean dislodging each of the major pillars undergirding its power and influence. That would involve campaign-finance reform; curbing the revolving door between the weapons industry and government; shedding more light on its funding of political campaigns, think tanks, and Hollywood; and prioritizing investments in the jobs of the future in green technology and public health instead of piling up ever more weapons systems. Most important of all, perhaps, a broad-based public education campaign is needed to promote more realistic views of the challenge posed by China and to counter the current climate of fear that serves the interests of the Pentagon and the giant weapons contractors at the expense of the safety and security of the rest of us."
The first step will come from getting rid of all the myths, fabrications of history, and glorification of the very people who got us into the genuine crisis we’re in now, all out of the Conservative Movement as the prime movers of US militarism (and maybe to even take notice that by comparative political theory, there is virtually no difference between the Conservatism described in the attached papers, and the “theory” of carl Schmitt. And if you know anything about fascism, you know Schmitt provided the political theory of “non-Nazi Fascism.” And as evident from how strong “McCarthyism” is on this list, and the glorification of the very political theorists who were the ideological architects of the Military Industrial Complicit, that doesn’t have the proverbial snowball’s chance in Hell!
On May 6, 2023, at 5:22 PM, Chas Freeman via Salon <salon@listserve.com> wrote:
May 5, 2023
by Ben Freeman – William D. Hartung
![]() In
his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned
U.S. citizens about the “military–industrial complex” – Public Domain The military-industrial complex (MIC) that President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned
Americans about more than 60 years ago is still alive and well. In
fact, it’s consuming many more tax dollars and feeding far larger
weapons producers than when Ike raised the alarm about the “unwarranted
influence” it wielded in his 1961 farewell address to the nation. The statistics are stunning. This year’s proposed budget for the
Pentagon and nuclear weapons work at the Department of Energy is $886 billion — more than twice as much, adjusted for inflation, as at the time of Eisenhower’s speech. The Pentagon now consumes more than half the
federal discretionary budget, leaving priorities like public health,
environmental protection, job training, and education to compete for
what remains. In 2020, Lockheed Martin received $75 billion in Pentagon
contracts, more than the entire budget of the State Department and the Agency for International Development combined. This year’s spending
just for that company’s overpriced, underperforming F-35 combat
aircraft equals the full budget of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. And as a new report
from the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy
Studies revealed recently, the average taxpayer spends $1,087 per year
on weapons contractors compared to $270 for K-12 education and just $6
for renewable energy. The list goes on — and on and on. President Eisenhower characterized such tradeoffs in a lesser known speech,
“The Chance for Peace,” delivered in April 1953, early in his first
term, this way: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every
rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who
hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This
world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of
its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children…” How sadly of this moment that is. New Rationales, New Weaponry Now, don’t be fooled. The current war machine isn’t your
grandfather’s MIC, not by a country mile. It receives far more money and
offers far different rationales. It has far more sophisticated tools of
influence and significantly different technological aspirations. Perhaps the first and foremost difference between Eisenhower’s era
and ours is the sheer size of the major weapons firms. Before the
post-Cold War merger boom of the 1990s, there were dozens of
significant defense contractors. Now, there are just five big (no,
enormous!) players — Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop
Grumman, and Raytheon. With so few companies to produce aircraft,
armored vehicles, missile systems, and nuclear weapons, the Pentagon has
ever more limited leverage in keeping them from overcharging for
products that don’t perform as advertised. The Big Five alone routinely
split more than $150 billion
in Pentagon contracts annually, or nearly 20% of the total Pentagon
budget. Altogether, more than half of the department’s annual spending
goes to contractors large and small. In Eisenhower’s day, the Soviet Union, then this country’s major
adversary, was used to justify an ever larger, ever more permanent arms
establishment. Today’s “pacing threat,”
as the Pentagon calls it, is China, a country with a far larger
population, a far more robust economy, and a far more developed
technical sector than the Soviet Union ever had. But unlike the USSR,
China’s primary challenge to the United States is economic, not
military. Yet, as Dan Grazier noted in a December 2022 report for
the Project on Government Oversight, Washington’s ever more intense
focus on China has been accompanied by significant military threat
inflation. While China hawks in Washington wring their hands about that
country having more naval vessels than America, Grazier points out that
our Navy has far more firepower. Similarly, the active American nuclear
weapons stockpile is roughly nine times as large as China’s and the Pentagon budget three times what Beijing spends on its military, according to the latest figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. But for Pentagon contractors, Washington’s ever more intense focus on
the prospect of war with China has one overriding benefit: it’s
fabulous for business. The threat of China’s military, real or imagined,
continues to be used to justify significant increases in military
spending, especially on the next generation of high-tech systems ranging
from hypersonic missiles to robotic weapons and artificial
intelligence. The history of such potentially dysfunctional high-tech
systems, from President Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars”
missile defense system to the F-35, does not bode well, however, for
the cost or performance of emerging military technologies. No matter, count on one thing: tens, if not hundreds, of billions of
dollars will undoubtedly go into developing them anyway. And remember
that they are dangerous and not just to any enemy. As Michael Klare
pointed out in an Arms Control Association report: “AI-enabled systems may fail in unpredictable ways, causing unintended human slaughter or an uncontrolled escalation crisis.” Arsenal of Influence Despite a seemingly never–ending list of overpriced, underperforming weapons systems developed for a Pentagon that’s the only federal agency never to pass an audit,
the MIC has an arsenal of influence propelling it ever closer to a
trillion-dollar annual budget. In short, it’s bilking more money from
taxpayers than ever before and just about everyone — from lobbyists
galore to countless political campaigns, think tanks beyond number to
Hollywood — is in on it. And keep in mind that the dominance of a handful of mega-firms in
weapons production means that each of the top players has more money to
spread around in lobbying and campaign contributions. They also have
more facilities and employees to point to, often in politically key
states, when persuading members of Congress to vote for — Yes!– even
more money for their weaponry of choice. The arms industry as a whole has donated
more than $83 million to political candidates in the past two election
cycles, with Lockheed Martin leading the pack with $9.1 million in
contributions, followed by Raytheon at $8 million, and Northrop Grumman
at $7.7 million. Those funds, you won’t be surprised to learn, are
heavily concentrated among members of the House and Senate armed
services committees and defense appropriations subcommittees. For
example, as Taylor Giorno of OpenSecrets, a group that tracks campaign
and lobbying expenditures, has found,
“The 58 members of the House Armed Services Committee reported
receiving an average of $79,588 from the defense sector during the 2022
election cycle, three times the average $26,213 other representatives
reported through the same period.” Lobbying expenditures by all the denizens of the MIC are even higher — more than $247 million in the last two election cycles. Such funds are used to employ 820 lobbyists,
or more than one for every member of Congress. And mind you, more than
two-thirds of those lobbyists had swirled through Washington’s infamous
revolving door from jobs at the Pentagon or in Congress to lobby for the
arms industry. Their contacts in government and knowledge of arcane
acquisition procedures help ensure that the money keeps flowing for more
guns, tanks, ships and missiles. Just last month, the office of Senator
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) reported
that nearly 700 former high-ranking government officials, including
former generals and admirals, now work for defense contractors. While a
few of them are corporate board members or highly paid executives, 91%
of them became Pentagon lobbyists, according to the report. And that feverishly spinning revolving door provides current members
of Congress, their staff, and Pentagon personnel with a powerful
incentive to play nice with those giant contractors while still in their
government roles. After all, a lucrative lobbying career awaits once
they leave government service. Nor is it just K Street lobbying jobs those weapons-making
corporations are offering. They’re also spreading jobs to nearly every
Main Street in America. The poster child for such jobs as a selling
point for an otherwise questionable weapons system is Lockheed Martin’s
F-35. It may never be fully ready for combat thanks to countless design
flaws, including more than 800 unresolved defects detected by the Pentagon’s independent testing office. But the company insists that its program produces no less than 298,000 jobs in 48 states, even if the actual total is less than half of that. In reality — though you’d never know this in today’s Washington — the
weapons sector is a declining industry when it comes to job creation,
even if it does absorb near-record levels of government funding.
According to statistics
gathered by the National Defense Industrial Association, there are
currently one million direct jobs in arms manufacturing compared to 3.2
million in the 1980s. Outsourcing, automation, and the production of fewer units of more
complex systems have skewed the workforce toward better-paying
engineering jobs and away from production work, a shift that has come at
a high price. The vacuuming up of engineering and scientific talent by
weapons makers means fewer skilled people are available to address
urgent problems like public health and the climate crisis. Meanwhile,
it’s estimated that spending on education, green energy, health care, or infrastructure could produce 40% to 100% more jobs than Pentagon spending does. Shaping the Elite Narrative: The Military-Industrial Complex and Think Tanks One of the MIC’s most powerful tools is its ability to shape elite
discussions on national security issues by funding foreign policy think
tanks, along with affiliated analysts who are all too often the experts
of choice when it comes to media coverage on issues of war and peace. A
forthcoming Quincy Institute brief reveals that more than 75% of the top
foreign-policy think tanks in the United States are at least partially
funded by defense contractors. Some, like the Center for a New American
Security and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, receive
millions of dollars every year from such contractors and then publish articles and reports that are largely supportive of defense-industry funding. Some such think tanks even offer support for weapons made by their
funders without disclosing those glaring conflicts of interest. For
example, an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholar’s critique
of this year’s near-historically high Pentagon budget request, which,
she claimed, was “well below inflation,” also included support for
increased funding for a number of weapons systems like the Long Range
Anti-Ship Missile, the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, the B-21
bomber, and the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile. What’s not mentioned in the piece? The companies that build those
weapons, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, have been AEI funders.
Although that institute is a “dark money” think tank that doesn’t
publicly disclose its funders, at an event last year, a staffer let slip that the organization receives money from both of those contractors. Unfortunately, mainstream media outlets disproportionately rely on
commentary from experts at just such think tanks. That forthcoming
Quincy Institute report, for example, found that they were more than
four times as likely as those without MIC funding to be cited in New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journalarticles
about the Ukraine War. In short, when you see a think-tank expert
quoted on questions of war and peace, odds are his or her employer
receives money from the war machine. What’s more, such think tanks have their own version of a feverishly spinning revolving door, earning them the moniker “holding tanks” for future government officials. The Center for a New American Security, for example, receives millions of dollars from defense contractors and the Pentagon every year and has boasted
that a number of its experts and alumni joined the Biden
administration, including high-ranking political appointees at the
Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency. Shaping the Public Narrative: The Military-Entertainment Complex Top Gun: Maverick was a certified blockbuster, wowing audiences that ultimately gave that action film an astounding 99%
score on Rotten Tomatoes — and such popular acclaim helped earn the
movie a Best Picture Oscar nomination. It was also a resounding success
for the Pentagon, which worked closely with the filmmakers and provided,
“equipment — including jets and aircraft carriers — personnel and
technical expertise,” and even had the opportunity to make script
revisions, according to the Washington Post. Defense contractors were similarly a pivotal part of that movie’s success. In fact, the CEO of Lockheed Martin boasted that his firm “partnered with Top Gun’s producers to bring cutting-edge, future forward technology to the big screen.” While Top Gun: Maverick might have been the most successful
recent product of the military-entertainment complex, it’s just the
latest installment in a long history of Hollywood spreading military
propaganda. “The Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency have
exercised direct editorial control over more than 2,500 films and
television shows,” according to Professor Roger Stahl, who researches propaganda and state violence at the University of Georgia. “The result is an entertainment culture rigged to produce relatively
few antiwar movies and dozens of blockbusters that glorify the
military,” explained journalist David Sirota, who has repeatedly called
attention to the perils of the military-entertainment complex. “And
save for filmmakers’ obligatory thank you to the Pentagon in the
credits,” argued Sirota, “audiences are rarely aware that they may be watching government-subsidized propaganda.” What Next for the MIC? More than 60 years after Eisenhower identified the problem and gave
it a name, the military-industrial complex continues to use its
unprecedented influence to corrupt budget and policy processes, starve
funding for non-military solutions to security problems, and ensure that
war is the ever more likely “solution” to this country’s problems. The
question is: What can be done to reduce its power over our lives, our
livelihoods, and ultimately, the future of the planet? Countering the modern-day military-industrial complex would mean
dislodging each of the major pillars undergirding its power and
influence. That would involve campaign-finance reform; curbing the
revolving door between the weapons industry and government; shedding
more light on its funding of political campaigns, think tanks, and
Hollywood; and prioritizing investments in the jobs of the future in
green technology and public health instead of piling up ever more
weapons systems. Most important of all, perhaps, a broad-based public
education campaign is needed to promote more realistic views of the
challenge posed by China and to counter the current climate of fear that
serves the interests of the Pentagon and the giant weapons contractors
at the expense of the safety and security of the rest of us. That, of course, would be no small undertaking, but the alternative —
an ever-spiraling arms race that could spark a world-ending conflict or
prevent us from addressing existential threats like climate change and
pandemics — is simply unacceptable. This column is distributed by TomDispatch.
-- Salon mailing list Salon@listserve.com https://mlm2.listserve.net/mailman/listinfo/salon
|