The latest justification of failure of the James Webb Space Telescope to reconcile observation with predictions of the Standard Model are not good enough. Its being proposed that the telescope cant resolve the individual median starlight only the mean of the net starlight. Pathetic. Why would they launch a defeatest mission if they knew beforehand it would be unresolveable but still announce that it would be the entire point of the mission? Clearly if the results had been what they were hoping for we would never have heard such nonsense.
This is simply the latest in a long line of failed predictions. I propose that the notion those models with a similarly long line of spot on predictions, most notably in this case Plasma Cosmology, are not even entertained.
Plasma Cosmology hasn't had a single principle falsified in 2 decades while ^cdm cosmology (big bang dark matter/ dark energy cosmology of the standard model with it's monopoly on public funding amounting to almost a trillion dollars since the 50's) has has to adjust or "tweak" it's model on every point where new tech has gathered better data, JWST being the latest.
How is it scientific to keep the worst predictive success on life support and with zero justification have the gold standard model maligned as "fringe" based on no evidence put forward whatsoever, justified purely on "Fiat Science" or in other words stating it as such by "experts". Does it not matter that those experts are funded by same grants that the institutions crafted by the model has a monopoly over? Can someone please explain how this is not a conflict of interest?
Where else have we seen this? I will tell you. We see the exact same thing in climate science and with the big pharma R&D grants for vaccines. Who can deny the overwhelming failure of these 3 consensus science establishment institutions funded (thanks to insidious creeping death public policy legislation) by the taxpayer, the same taxpayer these nepotism fueled bureaucracies work against in the most deceitful way imaginable. Is it then really surprising that they have together occupied the bottom 3 places in predictive success or had clinical trials THEY OVERSEE not match up in any way to actual data? No it's not surprising. Who gives the decision-making role in both funding and public understanding of science (including the education syllabus/curriculum) to those who have a stakeholding or some sort of skin in the game? Does it not matter that they have a history of never ever having pulled their own funding to instead fund more promising successful options of competitors?
Is it a long line of total morons all making thousands of repeated mistakes over decades just so happening to always err on the side of the same special interests who benefit? No. That is so improbable as to effectively be impossible. Clearly the answer is FRAUD AND CORRUPTION. This will NEVER change until oversight structures are brought back that would in effect criminalise nepotism in government again.
Climate, Cosmology, Big Pharma and the Military Industrial Complex don't at first glance appear to share the same dynamics, but once you see them they can never be unseen.
Change will be an unprecedented shock to the cottage industry of sycophantic media and NGO's that have sprouted like weeds to support this unscientific or anti-democracy pop culture crime structure which is the precise means by which the corporate and state Frankenstein monstrosity has been enabled.
Take it seriously. We can no longer lament the outcome while turning a blind eye to the cause. I do my best to link cause and effect together in politics and I learned that from science. It beggars belief that the consensus scientific establishment has the gall to malign the principles of the scientific method as "fringe" on the basis of the scientific method which (despite self evident reality contradicting it) they simply claim as to be the sole domain of the current power structure.
All challengers are by their papal decree "Pseudoscience". This is a 180° reversal of actual reality.
One person can be given credit beyond simply recognising it, and it comes from the most unlikely of places, the pinnacle of the establishment itself.
Let's take a trip back in time to when the unholy alliance of the corporate state was still in its infancy and the experts in this tactic, the central bankers who had long since established private unelected corporate takeover of the most important government instrument (money) were diversifying into military socialism (ie requiring libertarian capitalist countries to become socialist nations whose beneficiary list of the poor, the sick and the old would be replaced by rich banks needing bailouts and rich military contractors needing perpetual wars to develop a potential market, and competitors to the government awarding them their funding seemed the perfect place to start.
Here is his famous warning about the potential to form what he first coined as a "Military/Industrial Complex" now in common parlance as the "MIC"
But there was another lesser known warning about the danger facing science we now recognise as the "Consensus Science" Complex, I have never seen a pop culture reference to any CSC though...
Dwight Eisenhower: The Consensus Science & Tech public funding incentive replacing intellectual curiosity and forming a "Frankensteins Monster" with corporate research motives and methods.
I found this quite stunning. Eisenhower has been able to grasp something about the subtle sanitizing, taming and ultimately the owning of science as a tool purchased for the express purpose of lending legitimacy to whichever propaganda campaign it's purchasers require. At the time science (defined in contemporary pop culture of the late 50's principally as a method and despite the Manhattan Project having probably set off a series of events that would forever change this understanding)
He anticipates this in 1961. Even as I write this in 2023 there are many reasonably bright people I know who (despite having science degrees) are sociologically or politically naive about the nature of the special interests which steer both the funding for research grants and public policy.
Through projecting concerns and extrapolating social pop culture/ institutional emerging behaviour patterns Eisenhower and JFK had extaordinary intuitive powers of being able to anticipate trends in social architecture
JFK's iconic speech (which is never cited and rapidly being scrubbed from the internet to my utter disbelief!) was one of the best ever. Every word was considered. The lead up and structure and progress of themes was carefully considered. Nuance, metaphor and euphemism were literary devices that were all called upon and used it the best possible way. He succeeded in crafting two speeches in one, and in many ways was reaching to the media and public to resound with them the need for support if they wanted the establishment to be taken on. It would have to be together. But he was ahead of his time and neither were ready.
The speech was outwardly an assessment on the freedom of the press and its importance in resisting capture, as well as allusions to the communist threat of the day. But by this time it was already more difficult to speak openly and JFKs speech was delicately phrased, every word carefully chosen to reflect rather the need for vigilance in society against the transatlantic Anglo American dynastic elite and other cabals like the Intelligence Agencies and Dynastic power behind what would later be known as the "Deep State". This is the type of vigilance his predessor equally warned us of in the scientific and military industrial complexes.
If we had such vigilance, in a fantasy land where public interest shapes public policy, we would not be in this mess. But lets pretend we can the lance the boil of the corporate state merger. If achieved would we not be well positioned having learned immensely from the tactics and players who conspired to bring such a state of affairs to fruition as they already have?
With Covid suddenly disappearing from the headlines, it's been interesting reading the perspectives of varying merit on social media. We will Segway back to Covid briefly at the end but let's take a look at the justification of these perspectives and reconcile which of them have been consistent in gaining understanding of why things have played out the way they have and whether anyone should be surprised.
Those perspectives are without doubt swayed by the absolute nonsense narrative of the MSM featuring their usual patronising "Good vs Evil" narrative. Features of this clown show which can scarcely be believed include journalists suggesting that Russia's main objective is Kiev (which makes no sense) and ridiculous casualties on the Russian side. This same presstitute express only silence on the Russian primary goal which is no doubt the Lugansk and Donetsk areas.
One of those perspectives I didn't mind included this epic rant from George Galloway where he covers everything from hypocrisy to the startling biomedical labs the US was funding in Ukraine, as Putin had claimed. (Below)
"I smell a rat"
I am, however, curious about the basis of some conclusions which (like good doggies barking for their biscuit have been overwhelmingly adopting the #BlamePutin position. Do you think it is reasonable to wonder about whether in making those conclusions a person knows about the history of Putin in his the Yeltsin years, as the darling of the West. It was the West who all along wanted a sober version of Yeltsin in power. Putin was very helpful and and friendly to the West before his struggles with NATO expansion. How many understand what changed his outlook before and after the WEF young leaders program during the 80s, or his perspective before being vetted by Bill Clinton, George Soros and Boris Yeltsin and his perspective during the neoliberal capital finance plunder of former Soviet republics which he feels he regrettably aided and must atone for. How many know the extremes he has gone to in his efforts to hold NATO to their promises made to Gorbachev, Yesltzin, Medvedev and Putin himself? I'd put forward that he has demonstrated far too much restraint already.
What of Putin's turnaround of Russia from near collapse to bring Russian average household yearly incomes up from $800 per year to $30 000? That is something no "Make America Great Again" campaign will ever touch. This while under crippling sanctions. Regularly, his thwarting of the internationalist order by dedollarising Russia and reducing its US Treasury bond holdings wasn't popular in bankster circles. He was also behind building up her gold reserves to buy value rather than debt (represented by US treasury bonds: especially traded in a rigged market. By turning Russias deficit into a surplus, Putin put the Federation in an elite club of around 10 nations without any real sovereign debt to speak of, depending on how you slice the role central bank debt. Nations without any sovereign debt to speak of usually involve an entire debt spread. Even still, overall with mixed debt, even under years of sanctions, Russia's debt spread looks good.
Mmmm? Just wait until Hunter Biden eventually gets linked to those biolabs...
The capital finance globalist banksters have not done damage they hoped for. Neither has the Permanent Security State ("Deep State"). Putin's liberation of Syria from US, Saudi, Turkish, Israeli, Qatari and Kurdish supported regime change crime was epic and brought the nation back from the precipice of doom. The paramilitary units parading as rebels were covered by Western MSM as "moderate rebels" instead of terrorists. Russia smoked by them out when she rolled into Syria (search "Syria"tag on drop down menu on top-right of screen). It was a turning point in their quest in securing financial and military hegemony. By preventing Syria from being another Libya and Crimea another Ukraine Putin indicated he was no longer prepared to stand by and fail in his most fundamental task as president, secure national borders.
Syrian leader Bashar Al Assad sincerely thanks the Russian leader for essentially rescuing the nation from certain destruction
If you were among those adopting a critical position, are you aware of the overt pain he has inflicted on the blue and white flag neoliberal globalist world order? Are you aware of his banning of arch globalist George Soros (very busy in the US too) activities inside Russia, and of his efforts since 2014 to halt the Genocide in Donbass? Or his efforts to implement the Minsk agreement? The death toll of Russian speaking Slavs, Jews and Muslims (at the hands of a largely neo-Nazi military) in the east is approaching 15000. Russia has sent aid and arranged several emergency evacuations for those victims due to historical ties to Russia.
If you do know this, please reconcile this resume with your assertion. If you contest these claims please state which and why, I would very much like to hear such a case being made.
If you don't want the details to bog you down and simply believe war causes death and you support the Ukrainian people then reconcile this with your support of the innocent:
Zelezny could end the war TODAY by agreeing to stop the genocide in the east and stick to the Minsk agreement of 2015 by remaining neutral and not joining NATO allowing Javelin & Stinger missiles to be moved to Russian borders pointed at Moscow. It was in fact Russian Intel's information of a large Ukraine army gathering for a final cleanup of the seperatists Donbass Republics that actually galvanised Putin into action. Dont underestimate the importance of that.
Does Putin's red line sound unreasonable to you? No, of course not. Perhaps you were not aware of this and contest my assertions? Then do your own research and check the facts, but not with MSM unless you want to hear the sort of nonsense they have been reporting. The Western media are seriously putting forward that Ukraine has the upper and that Russia's primary target is Kiev, not the East. This is barely two weeks into the conflict and we are already getting 180 digression from the truth!
Part 1
I have been saying this for some time, please see the background to this situation by reading part 1 of this saga which is one of the first posts I wrote on this blog back in 2015 which you can find HERE.
This plot is only just unfolding. The neferious affairs Russian intelligence has obtained is extensive. They claim they have access to all US Intel operations involving Ukraine and the list is extensive. First on the list is WMDs. I don't mean nukes, both the US and Russia are stockpiled with nukes, everyone knows that. This involves the serious and illegal biological warfare facilities Putin claimed had been established in Ukraine with the backing of the US, involving pathogens and even pathogens of infectious disease of "Particularly lethal varieties". These facilities contain biological warfare weapons illegally developed which if used in a false flag in the manner in which chemical weapons were allegedly used in Syria, could provide pretext for WW3. Here's where it gets interesting and unsettling, watch....
Glenn Greenwald outlines the disturbing connectios between Covid, the anthrax scare following 9/11, illegal US Army Biowarfare facilities, Bio Research labs in Ukraine that "don't exist" and why Russia is so concerned in particular with border security and Ukraine.
So was any of this surprising?
In a word: No
If you think my 2015:article called it, then prepare yourself for a lecture by Prof Mearsheimer back in September 2015 who basically prophetically nailed every nuance of what played out. The only point of contest I would have in this superb talk is the Western motivation he gives. You don't get something so on-point without an inate understanding of geopolitics and the ability to reconcile these forces with regional sociology. Clearly many share my view because at the time of writing this the clip from the University of Chicago had over 21 million views, unusual for a talk on geopolitics.
Prof. John J. Mearsheimer, The R. Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science & Co-director of the National Security Policy Institute, gives his prophetic warning about what to expect back in 2015, and turned out to correct in every single aspect in terms of what played out (IE reality).
You should also read my parallel post that gives a more ideological synopsis of the globalist agenda told from the prism of their blue and white flag internationalist bureaucracy/ technocracy organizations:
Main article: Excerpts from Wouter Lanz upcoming book: 2025
Zbigniew Brzezinski published his 1970 'Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era', assisted in particular by Samual P Huntington. In 'Between Two Ages' Brzezinski proclaimed that 'national sovereignty is no longer a viable concept', thus declaring nation states obsolete: 'The nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. [Nota Bene] International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state'. Moreover, he foresaw' a 'movement toward a larger community by the developing nations through a variety of indirect ties and already developing limitations on national sovereignty'. In 1971 Klaus Schwab founded the World Economic Forum in the Swiss Davos. This doubtlessly Fourth Reicher Schwab would author his 2016 'The Fourth Industrial Revolution', a Round Tabler Writ detailing how it will render the masses superfluous, well in advance of the Event 201 and its Covid. In 1971 paving the path for China's rise the Round Table during Nixon's Presidency orchestrated abandoning the gold standard, while plotting the encounter with Mao and Zhou. 'Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger were designing the “opening to China” in 1971 - 72', in 'Lee Kuan Yew', Pillsbury though, in his 2013 'China's Secret Strategy' ['their' 100-Year Plan, from 1948/9 to 2049, see Xi's three about 30 years periods, which coincides with the Threshold & Hinges Strategy], contended that it would have been Mao's move, either way it was Round Tabler instigated. Mao of course had in 1956 already facilitated the later demise of the USSR with his positioning of the reformist Gomulka in Poland.
Hot on Schwab's heals and in tandem with Nixon's and Kissinger's 1972 Round Tabler Beijing exploits, facilitating Deng's 'Open Up' era, Brzezinski presented his plan for a commission of trilateral nations, tying in Japan with the 'West' as a typical Round Tabler dialectic, or 'balancing', act, reminiscent of the USSR and Nazi Germany being pitched against each other, during a meeting of the David Rockefeller founded Bilderberg Group in 1972; in 1973 the Trilateral Commission was officially founded with David Rockefeller as chairman, who would write in his article 'From a China Traveler', in the NY Times, on August 10, 1973, 'Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution ['More recent fgures suggest Mao killed up to 300 million with at least half verifiable '(!) - Hallett, in his 2007 'Gifting Stalin'], it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose [see Huntington(!)] The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history'.
Brzezinski was named founding North American director. North American members included Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, U.S. Congressman John B. Anderson and Time Inc. editor in chief Hedley Donovan(!). Foreign founding members included Reginald Maudling, Lord Eric Rolls, Economist editor Alistair Burnet [exposing his ignorance Mandela, in his 'Long Walk', ghost-written by Public Policy's Stengel, gleefully mentions having been allowed to read the Round Tabler Economist, assuming that the Total Strategists were not aware of the political nature of the magazine, while in fact it was part of his re-orientation and neo-liberal conditioning program], FIAT president Giovanni Agnelli, and French vice president of the Commission of European Communities Raymond Barre. In 1973 Pillsbury had been instructed by the US government 'to work with China's nationalists who call themselves 'Ying Pai' [compare 'Vulcans'], meaning 'hawks' or 'eagles'. Many of these Ying Pai are generals, admirals and government hard-liners. Few Americans have ever met them. However, they are the Chinese officials and authors I know the best, some of my colleagues wrongly dismiss the Ying Pai as nuts, but to me, they represent the real voice of China.
The hawks appear to be very supportive of the narrative of the decline of the United States and the rise of a strong China' [in 'China's Secret Strategy', 2012]. Carter, a peanuts farming nuke-submarine commander had been shuttled into position [see Huntington - Carter would implement FEMA] by the Round Tablers, in 1976 he would be installed as President: 'When Carter won the presidential election his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said, 'if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski come on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, we've 'lost', and I'll quit'; that was 'lost' to the Globalists' Trilateral Commission, their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Round Tabler Commission.
When Vance and Brzezinski were appointed accordingly, Jordan accepted happily the post of Carter's chief of staff nonetheless.
'What the Trilateralists truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. They believe the abundant materialism [compare China] they propose to create will overwhelm existing differences [in fact it is, and indeed does, to 'overwhelm' and so 'manage' the masses]. As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future(!).
Trilateralists and others within aligned globalist societies display no concern for the United States as a sovereign nation. Their policies most often run counter to the best interests of the United States [part of their dialectic grand scheme was Trump's 'make America Great again' with its 'Trade War' directed at China, and the Round Tabler reaction with their 'Covid-19' Creative Destruction of the Vulgate's 'Democratic World'] and, in fact, appear to support the allegation that they seek a one-world government' [Marrs]. David Rockefeller having ventured to keep their treasonous conduct as much as that of their Round Tabler Media earlier covered could in the end not restrain his vanity, claiming his share in the Globalist endeavour with his statement: 'We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine(!) & other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plans for the world(!) if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government' .. 'We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order'(!).
*
In his 2002 'Memoires' Rockefeller arrogantly displayed his Globalist colours: 'characterizing my family and me as 'Internationalists' [Rockefeller uses this term to deflect from 'Globalists'] and of conspiring with 'others' [of his Fourth Reicher ilk] around the World to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - 'One World', if you will [the Round Tabler 'Open Society'] - if that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it!'
David Rockefeller would run at one time hands-on simultaneously the Council on Foreign Relations ['which 'influences' USA foreign policy, inclusive of wars', while coordinating the Round Tabler Bankers' interests with the Vulcans, Deep State and their Media'], Chase Manhattan Bank, Exxon, the CIA, and NBC'.
The Rockerfeller founded Trilateral Commission, a member of the Round Tabler Trinity with Rockerfeller founded the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockerfeller founded Bilderberger Movement, would publish its 'Triangle Papers'.
Particularly interesting is the 1975 paper 'The Crisis of Democracy', stating 'America needs a greater degree of moderation in [i.e. 'less'] democracy, because democratic institutions are incapable of responding to crises'! Author of this '75 paper was the Olin Foundation [with CIA funds] sponsored, fascistoid securocrat Samuel P Huntington. Huntington who had assisted Brzezinski with his 'Between Two Ages' ['The manuscript was read and criticized by a number of friends and colleagues. I am especially grateful to Professor Samuel P Huntington for his trenchant criticisms and very helpful recommendations'] would make his way too to the RSA ( Republic Of South Africa) in 1981, to assist PW Botha with the Total Strategy.
Later would see South Africa bailing the the banks out the first time during the Savings & Loans crises of the 90's. Reserve Bank Governor Chris Stolts amended their banking act to include a secrecy clause to facilitate OPERATION HAMMER. (Below) track fwd to 18 minute's to hear former Reserve Bank non-executive director turned whistleblower give the Police Force the information on SA's strategic gold reserves, thousands of tons of gold worth trillions, ultimately handed over to JP Morgan Chase by Pik Botha and FW De Klerk.
https://youtu.be/YddkvGQzzbs
In 1978 Huntington, who had written that without catastrophe democracy would become 'anomic', or purposeless(!), 'without common priorities', had been named Coordinator of Security Planning of Jimmy Carter's National Security Council. 'Common priorities' of course pertain to the Round Tabler goal of their 'One World' 'Open Society'; to instill their purpose on the masses, in a 'democracy' a collective perception among the significant groups in society of a major challenge to their well-being that threatens them all equally, proposed Huntington(!), such as the quasi Cold War and its the Nuclear Threat, the War on Terror, Gore's Climate Change, and the equally fake Covid, is to be manufactured(!).
As all USA governments also Carter's was stuffed with Round Tabler minions. Following Huntington's recommendations to curtail the USA's democracy and to manufacture catastrophes(!), 'Carter created the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 1979, coinciding with the 'War on Terror' Jerusalem Conference, with the power to take totalitarian control of government functions in the event of a national emergency' [Jim Marrs in Rule by Secrecy]. Another Round Table serving entity, the Club of Rome would carry Huntington's recommendations to prevent a 'democratic' World turning 'anomic' proclaiming, in 1991, The First Global Revolution: 'In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill'(!). The Globalist 2020 so called 'COVID' scam would reveal 'FEMA', which was first invoked following the 2001 '9/11', 'War on Terror' enabling, false-flag assault and subsequently never completely revoked, as the democratic society's actual national emergency and common threat!
President Eisenhower displayed remarkable vision when he left us with some sage advice which we utterly ignored. Click on the embedded short 2min clip.
The Political Economy of the Weapons Industry Guess Who’s Sleeping With Our Insecurity Blanket?
By Joan Roelofs
For many people the “military-industrial-complex (MIC)” brings to mind the top twenty weapons manufacturers. President Dwight Eisenhower, who warned about it in 1961, wanted to call it the military- industrial-congressional-complex, but decided it was not prudent to do so. Today it might well be called the military-industrial-congressional-almost-everything-complex. Most departments and levels of government, businesses, and also many charities, social service, environmental, and cultural organizations, are deeply embedded with the military.
The weapons industry may be spearheading the military budget and military operations; it is aided immensely by the cheering or silence of citizens and their representatives. Here we will provide some likely reasons for that assent. We will use the common typology of three national sectors: government, business, and nonprofit, with varying amounts of interaction among them. This does not preclude, though it masks somewhat, the proposition that government is the executive of the ruling class.
Every kind of business figures in the Department of Defense (DoD) budget. Lockheed is currently the largest contractor in the weapons business. It connects with the worldwide MIC by sourcing parts, for example, for the F-35 fighter plane, from many countries. This helps a lot to market the weapon, despite its low opinion among military experts as well as anti-military critics. Lockheed also does civilian work, which enhances its aura while it spreads its values.
Other types of businesses have enormous multi-year contracts—in the billions. This despite the constitutional proviso that Congress not appropriate military funds for more than a two year term. Notable are the construction companies, such as Fluor, KBR, Bechtel, and Hensel Phelps. These build huge bases, often with high tech surveillance or operational capacity, in the US and abroad, where they hire locals or commonly, third country nationals to carry out the work. There are also billion-funded contractors in communications technology, intelligence analysis, transportation, logistics, food, and clothing. “Contracting out” is our modern military way; this also spreads its influence far and wide.
Medium, small, and tiny businesses dangle from the “Christmas tree” of the Pentagon, promoting popular cheering or silence on the military budget. These include special set-asides for minority-owned and small businesses. A Black-owned small business, KEPA-TCI (construction), received contracts for $356 million. [Data comes from several sources, available free on the internet: websites, tax forms, and annual reports of organizations; usaspending.gov (USA) and governmentcontractswon.com (GCW).] Major corporations of all types serving our services have been excellently described in Nick Turse’s The Complex. Really small and tiny businesses are drawn into the system: landscapers, dry cleaners, child care centers, and Come- Bye Goose Control of Maryland.
Amongthe businesses with large DoD contracts are book publishers: McGraw-Hill, Greenwood, Scholastic, Pearson, Houghton Mifflin, Harcourt, Elsevier, and others. Rarely have the biases in this industry, in fiction, nonfiction, and textbook offerings, been examined. Yet the influences on this small but significant population, the reading public, and the larger schooled contingent, may help explain the silence of the literate crowd and college graduates.
Much of what is left of organized industrial labor is in weapons manufacture. Its PACs fund the few “progressive” candidates in our political system, who tend to be silent about war and the threat of nuclear annihilation. Unlike other factories, the armaments makers do not suddenly move overseas, although they do use subcontractors worldwide.
Military spending may be only about 6% of the GDP, yet it has great impact because: 1. it is a growing sector; 2. it is recession-proof; 3. it does not rely on consumer whims; 4. it is the only thing prospering in many areas; and 5. the “multiplier” effect: subcontracting, corporate purchasing, and employee spending perk up the regional economy. It is ideally suited to Keynesian remedies, because of its ready destruction and obsolescence: what isn’t consumed in warfare, rusted out, or donated to our friends still needs to be replaced by the slightly more lethal thing. Many of our science graduates work for the military directly or its contractee labs concocting these.
The military’s unbeatable weapon is jobs, and all members of Congress, and state and local officials, are aware of this. It is where well-paying jobs are found for mechanics, scientists, and engineers; even janitorial workers do well in these taxpayer-rich firms. Weaponry is also important in our manufactured goods exports as our allies are required to have equipment that meets our specifications. Governments, rebels, terrorists, pirates, and gangsters all fancy our high tech and low tech lethal devices.
Our military economy also yields a high return on investments. These benefit not only corporate executives and other rich, but many middle and working class folk, as well as churches, benevolent, and cultural organizations. The lucrative mutual funds offered by Vanguard, Fidelity, and others are heavily invested in the weapons manufacturers.
Individual investors may not know what is in their fund’s portfolios; the institutions usually know. A current project of World Beyond War (https://worldbeyondwar.org/divest) advocates divestment of military stocks in the pension funds of state and local government workers: police, firepersons, teachers, and other civil servants. Researchers are making a state-by-state analysis of these funds. Among the findings are the extensive military stock holdings of CALpers, the California Public Employees Retirement System (the sixth largest pension fund on earth), the California State Teachers Retirement System, the New York State Teachers Retirement System, the New York City Employees Retirement System, and the New York State Common Retirement Fund (state and local employees). Amazing! the New York City teachers were once the proud parents of red diaper babies.
The governmental side of the MIC complex goes far beyond the DoD. In the executive branch, Departments of State, Homeland Security, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Interior; and CIA, AID, FBI, NASA, and other agencies; are permeated with military projects and goals. Even the Department of Agriculture has a joint program with the DoD to “restore” Afghanistan by creating a dairy cattle industry. No matter that the cattle and their feed must be imported, cattle cannot graze in the terrain as the native sheep and goats can, there is no adequate transportation or refrigeration, and the Afghans don’t normally drink milk. The native animals provide yogurt, butter, and wool, and graze on the rugged slopes, but that is all so un-American.
Congress is a firm ally of the military. Campaign contributions from contractor PACs are generous, and lobbying is extensive. So also are the outlays of financial institutions, which are heavily invested in the MIC. Congresspeople have significant shares of weapons industry stocks. To clinch the deal, members of Congress (and also state and local lawmakers) are well aware of the economic importance of military con- tracts in their states and districts.
Military bases, inside the US as well as worldwide, are an economic hub for communities. The DoD Base Structure Report for Fy2015 lists more than 4,000 domestic properties. Some are bombing ranges or re- cruiting stations; perhaps 400 are bases with a major impact on their localities. The largest of these, Fort Bragg, NC, is a city unto itself, and a cultural influence as well as economic asset to its region, as so well described by Catherine Lutz in Homefront. California has about 40 bases (https://militarybases.com/by- state/), and is home to major weapons makers as well. Officers generally live off-base, so the real estate, restaurant, retail, auto repair, hotel and other businesses are prospering. Local civilians find employment on bases. Closed, unconvertible installations are sometimes tourist attractions, such as the unlikeliest of all vacation spots, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
DoD has direct contracts and grants with state and local governments. These are for various projects and services, including large amounts to fund the National Guard. The Army Engineers maintain swimming holes and parks, and police forces get a deal on Bearcats. JROTC programs nationwide provide funding for public schools, and even more for those that are public school military academies; six are in Chicago.
National, state and local governments are well covered by the “insecurity blanket;” the nonprofit sector is not neglected. Nevertheless, it does harbor the very small group of anti-war organizations, such as Iraq Veterans Against War, Veterans for Peace, World Beyond War, Peace Action, Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for International Policy, Catholic Worker, Answer Coalition, and others. Yet unlike the Vietnam War period there is no vocal group of religious leaders protesting war, and the few students who are politically active are more concerned with other issues.
Nonprofit organizations and institutions are involved several ways. Some are obviously partners of the MIC: Boy and Girl Scouts, Red Cross, veterans’ charities, military think-tanks such as RAND and Institute for Defense Analysis, establishment think-tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, Atlantic Council, and the flagship of US world projection, the Council on Foreign Relations. There are also many international nongovernmental organizations that assist the US government in delivering “humanitarian” assistance, sing the praises of the market economy, or attempt to repair the “collateral” damage inflicted on lands and people, for example, Mercy Corps, Open Society Institutes, and CARE.
Educational institutions in all sectors are embedded with the military. The military schools include the service academies, National Defense University, Army War College, Naval War College, Air Force Institute of Technology, Air University, Defense Acquisition University, Defense Language Institute, Naval Postgraduate School, Defense Information School, the medical school, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and the notorious School of the Americas in Fort Benning, GA, now renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. “In addition, Senior Military Colleges offer a combination of higher education with military instruction. SMCs include Texas A&M University, Norwich University, The Virginia Military Institute, The Citadel, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), University of North Georgia and the Mary Baldwin Women’s Institute for Leadership” (https://www.usa.gov/military-colleges).
A university doesn’t have to be special to be part of the MIC. Most are awash with contracts, ROTC programs, and/or military officers and contractors on their boards of trustees. A study of the 100 most militarized universities includes prestigious institutions, as well as diploma mills that produce employees for military intelligence agencies and contractors (https://news.vice.com/article/these-are-the-100- most-militarized-universities-in-america).
Major liberal foundations have long engaged in covert and overt operations to support imperial projection, described by David Horowitz as the “Sinews of Empire” in his important 1969 Ramparts article. They have been close associates of the Central Intelligence Agency, and were active in its instigation. The foundation created and supported Council on Foreign Relations has long been a link among Wall Street, large corporations, academia, the media, and our foreign and military policymakers.
Less obvious are the military connections of philanthropic, cultural, social service, environmental, and professional organizations. They are linked through donations; joint programs; sponsorship of events, exhibits, and concerts; awards (both ways); investments; boards of directors; top executives; and contracts. The data here covers approximately the last twenty years, and rounds out the reasons for the astounding support (according to the polls) that US citizens have conferred on our military, its budget, and its operations.
Military contractor philanthropy was the subject of my previous CP reports, in 2006 and 2016. Every type of nonprofit (as well as public schools and universities) received support from the major weapons manufacturers; some findings were outstanding. Minority organizations were extremely well endowed. For many years there was crucial support for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) from Lockheed; Boeing also funded the Congressional Black Caucus. The former president and CEO of the NAACP, Bruce Gordon, is now on the Board of Trustees of Northrop Grumman.
General Electric is the most generous military contractor philanthropist, with direct grants to organizations and educational institutions, partnerships with both, and matching contributions made by its thousands of employees. The latter reaches many of the nongovernmental and educational entities throughout the country.
Major donors to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (listed in its 2016 Annual Report) include the Defense Intelligence Agency, Cisco Systems, Open Society Foundations, US Department of Defense, General Electric, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and Lockheed Martin. This is an echo of the CEIP’s military connections reported in Horace Coon’s book of the 1930s, Money to Burn.
The DoD itself donates surplus property to organizations; among those eligible are Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Little League Baseball, and United Service Organizations. The Denton Program allows non-governmental organizations to use extra space on U.S. military cargo aircraft to transport humanitarian assistance materials.
There is a multitude of joint programs and sponsorships. Here is a small sample.
The American Association of University Women’s National Tech Savvy Program encourages girls to enter STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) careers, with sponsorship from Lockheed, BAE Systems, and Boeing. Junior Achievement, sponsored by Bechtel, United Technologies, and others, aims to train children in market-based economics and entrepreneurship. Wolf Trap Foundation for the Performing Arts is partnered with Northrop Grumman for an “early childhood STEM ‘Learning through the Arts’ initiative for pre-K and kindergarten students.” The Bechtel Foundation has two programs for a “sustainable California”— an education program to help “young people develop the knowledge, skills, and character to explore and understand the world,” and an environmental program to promote the “management, stewardship and conservation for the state’s natural resources.”
The NAACP ACT-SO is a “yearlong enrichment program designed to recruit, stimulate, and encourage high academic and cultural achievement among African-American high school students,” with sponsorship from Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman et al. The national winners receive financial awards from major corporations, college scholarships, internships, and apprenticeships—in the military industries.
In recent years the weapons makers have become enthusiastic environmentalists. Lockheed was a sponsor of the US Chamber of Commerce Foundation Sustainability Forum in 2013. Northrop Grumman supports Keep America Beautiful, National Public Lands Day, and a partnership with Conservation International and the Arbor Day Foundation (for forest restoration). United Technologies is the founding sponsor of the U.S. Green Building Council Center for Green Schools, and co-creator of the Sustainable Cities Design Academy. Tree Musketeers is a national youth environmental organization partnered by Northrop Grumman and Boeing.
Awards go both ways: industries give awards to nonprofits, and nonprofits awards to military industries and people. United Technologies, for its efforts in response to climate change, was on Climate A list of the Climate Disclosure Project. The Corporate Responsibility Association gave Lockheed position 8 in 2016 in its 100 Best Corporate Citizens List. Points of Light included General Electric and Raytheon in its 2014 list of the 50 Most Community-Minded Companies in America. Harold Koh, the lawyer who as Obama’s advisor defended drone strikes and intervention in Libya, was recently given distinguished visiting professor status by Phi Beta Kappa. In 2017, the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility recognized 34 Young Hispanic Corporate Achievers; 3 were executives in the weapons industry. Elizabeth Amato, an executive at United Technologies, received the YWCA Women Achievers Award.
Despite laborious searching through tax form 990s, it is difficult to discover the specifics of organizations’ investments. Many have substantial ones; in 2006, the American Friends Service Committee had $3.5 million in revenue from investments. Human Rights Watch reported $3.5 million investment income on its 2015 tax form 990, and more than $107 million in endowment funds.
One of the few surveys of nonprofit policies (by Commonfund in 2012) found that only 17% of foundations used environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria in their investments. ESG seems to have replaced “socially responsible investing (SRI)” in investment terminology, and it has a somewhat different slant. The most common restriction is the avoidance of companies doing business in regions with conflict risk; the next relates to climate change and carbon emissions; employee diversity is also an important consideration. Commonfund’s study of charities, social service and cultural organizations reported that 70% of their sample did not consider ESG in their investment policies. Although 61% of religious organizations did employ ESG criteria, only 16% of social service organizations and 3% of cultural organizations did.
Weapon industries are hardly ever mentioned in these reports. Religious organizations sometimes still used the SRI investment screens, but the most common were alcohol, gambling, pornography, and tobacco. The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a resource for churches, lists almost 30 issues for investment consideration, including executive compensation, climate change, and opioid crisis, but none concerning weapons or war. The United Church (UCC) advisory, a pioneer in SRI investment policies, does include a screen: only companies should be chosen which have less than 10% revenue from alcohol or gambling, 1% from tobacco, 10% from conventional weapons and 5% from nuclear weapons.
The Art Institute of Chicago states on their website that “[W]ith the fiduciary responsibility to maximize returns on investment consistent with appropriate levels of risk, the Art Institute maintains a strong presumption against divesting for social, moral, or political reasons.” Listed as an associate is Honeywell International, and a major benefactor is the Crown Family (General Dynamics), which recently donated a $2 million endowment for a Professorship in Painting and Drawing.
Nonprofit institutions (as well as individuals and pension funds of all sectors) have heavy investments in the funds of financial companies such as State Street, Vanguard, BlackRock, Fidelity, CREF, and others, which have portfolios rich in military industries (https://worldbeyondwar.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/11/indirect.pdf). These include information technology firms, which, although often regarded as “socially responsible,” are among the major DoD contractors.
In recent years foundations and other large nonprofits, such as universities, have favored investments in hedge funds, real estate, derivatives, and private equity. The Carnegie Endowment, more “transparent” than most, lists such funds on its 2015 tax form 990 (Schedule D Part VII). It is unlikely that Lockheed, Boeing, et al, are among the distressed debt bonanzas, so these institutions may be low on weapons stock. Nevertheless, most of them have firm connections to the MIC through donations, leadership, and/or contracts.
Close association with the military among nonprofit board members and executives works to keep the lid on anti-war activities and expression. The Aspen Institute is a think-tank that has resident experts, and also a policy of convening with activists, such as anti-poverty community leaders. Its Board of Trustees is chaired by James Crown, who is also a director of General Dynamics. Among other board members are Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Javier Solana (former Secretary-General of NATO), and former Congresswoman Jane Harman. Harman “received the Defense Department Medal for Distinguished Service in 1998, the CIA Seal Medal in 2007, and the CIA Director’s Award and the National Intelligence Distinguished Public Service Medal in 2011. She is currently a member of the Director of National Intelligence’s Senior Advisory Group, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.” Lifetime Aspen Trustees include Lester Crown and Henry Kissinger.
In recent years, the Carnegie Corporation board of trustees included Condoleezza Rice and General Lloyd Austin III (Ret.), Commander of CENTCOM, a leader in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and also a board member of United Technologies. A former president of Physicians for Peace (not the similarly named well-known group) is Rear Admiral Harold Bernsen, formerly Commander of the US Middle East Force and not a physician.
TIAA, the college teachers’ retirement fund, had a CEO from 1993-2002, John H. Biggs, who was at the same time a director of Boeing. TIAA’s current board of directors includes an associate of a major military research firm, MITRE Corporations, and several members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Its senior executive Vice President, Rahul Merchant, is currently also a director at two information technology firms that have large military contracts: Juniper Networks and AASKI.
The American Association of Retired Persons’ chief lobbyist from 2002-2007, Chris Hansen, had previously served in that capacity at Boeing. The current VP of communications at Northrop Grumman, Lisa Davis, held that position at AARP from 1996-2005.
Board members and CEOs of the major weapons corporations serve on the boards of many nonprofits. Just to indicate the scope, these include the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Newman’s Own Foundation, New York Public Library, Carnegie Hall Society, Conservation International, Wolf Trap Foundation, WGBH, Boy Scouts, Newport Festival Foundation, Toys for Tots, STEM organizations, Catalyst, the National Science Center, the US Institute of Peace, and many foundations and universities.
The DoD promotes the employment of retired military officers as board members or CEOs of nonprofits, and several organizations and degree programs further this transition. U.S. Air Force Brigadier General Eden Murrie (Ret.) is now Director of Government Transformation and Agency Partnerships at the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service. She maintains that “[F]ormer military leaders have direct leadership experience and bring talent and integrity that could be applied in a nonprofit organization. . .” (seniormilitaryintransition.com/tag/eden-murrie/). Given the early retirement age, former military personnel (and reservists) are a natural fit for positions of influence in federal, state, and local governments, school boards, nonprofits, and volunteer work; many are in those places.
Perhaps the coziest relationships under the insecurity blanket are the multitudes of contracts and grants the Department of Defense tenders to the nonprofit world. DoD fiscal reporting is notoriously inaccurate, and there were conflicting accounts between and within the online databases. Nevertheless, even a fuzzy picture gives a good idea of the depth and scope of the coverage.
From the TNC 2016 Annual Report: “The Nature Conservancy is an organization that takes care of people and land, and they look for opportunities to partner. They’re nonpolitical. We need nongovernment organizations like TNC to help mobilize our citizens. They are on the ground. They understand the people, the politics, the partnerships. We need groups like TNC to subsidize what government organizations can’t do” (Mamie Parker, Former Assistant Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Arkansas Trustee, The Nature Conservancy).
Among the subsidies going the other way are 44 DoD contracts with TNC totaling several million for the years 2008-2018 (USA). These are for such services as Prairie Habitat Reforestation, $100,000, and Runway and Biosecurity upkeep at Palmyra Atoll, HI, $82,000 (USA). For the years 2000-2016, GCW lists a total of $5,500,000 in TNC’s DoD contracts.
Grants to TNC for specific projects, not clearly different from contracts, were much larger. Each is listed separately (USA); a rough count of the total was more than $150 million. One $55 million grant was for “Army compatible use buffer (acubs) in vicinity of Fort Benning military installation.” Similar grants, the largest, $14 million, were for this service at other bases. Another was for the implementation of Fort Benning army installation’s ecological monitoring plan. Included in the description of these grants was the notice: “Assist State and local governments to mitigate or prevent incompatible civilian land use/activity that is likely to impair the continued operational utility of a Department of Defense (DoD) military installation. Grantees and participating governments are expected to adopt and implement the study recommendations.”
TNC’s Form 990 for 2017 states its investment income as $21 million. It reported government grants of $108.5 million, and government contracts of $9 million. These may include funds from state and local as well as all departments of the federal government. The Department of the Interior, which manages the vast lands used for bombing ranges and live ammunition war games, is another TNC grantor.
Other environmental organizations sustained by DoD contracts are the National Audubon Society ($945,000 for 6 years, GCW), and Point Reyes Bird Observatory ($145,000, 6 years, GCW). USA reports contracts with Stichting Deltares, a Dutch coastal research institute, for $550,000 in 2016, grants to the San Diego Zoo of $367,000, and to the Institute for Wildlife Studies, $1.3 million for shrike monitoring.
Goodwill Industries (training and employing the disabled, ex-offenders, veterans, and homeless people) is an enormous military contractor. Each entity is a separate corporation, based on state or region, and the total receipt is in the billions. For example, for 2000-2016 (GCW), Goodwill of South Florida had $434 million and Southeastern Wisconsin $906 million in contracts. Goods and services provided include food and logistics support, records processing, army combat pants, custodial, security, mowing, and recycling. Similar organizations working for the DoD include the Jewish Vocational Service and Community Workshop, janitorial services, $12 million over 5 years; Lighthouse for the Blind, $4.5 million, water purification equipment; Ability One; National Institute for the Blind; Pride Industries; and Melwood Horticultural Training Center.
The DoD does not shun the work of Federal Prison Industries, which sells furniture and other products. A government corporation (and thus not a nonprofit), it had half a billion in sales to all federal departments in 2016. Prison labor, Goodwill Industries, and other sheltered-workshop enterprises, along with for- profits employing immigrant workers, teenagers, retirees, and migrant workers (who grow food for the military and the rest of us), reveal the evolving nature of the US working class, and some explanation for its lack of revolutionary fervor, or even mild dissent from the capitalist system.
The well-paid, and truly diverse employees (including executives) of major weapons makers are also not about to construct wooden barricades. Boards of directors in these industries are welcoming to minorities and women. The CEOs of Lockheed and General Dynamics are women, as is the Chief Operating Officer of Northrop Grumman. These success stories reinforce personal aspirations among the have-nots, rather than questioning the system.
Contracts with universities, hospitals, and medical facilities are too numerous to detail here; one that illustrates how far the blanket stretches is with Oxford University, $800,000 for medical research. Professional associations with significant contracts include the Institute of International Education, American Council on Education, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, National Academy of Sciences, Society of Women Engineers, American Indian Science and Engineering Society, American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, Society of Mexican-American Engineers, and U.S. Green Building Council. The Council of State Governments (a nonprofit policy association of officials) received a $193,000 contract for “preparedness” work. Let us hope we are well prepared.
The leaders, staff, members, donors, and volunteers of nonprofit organizations are the kind of people who might have been peace activists, yet so many are smothered into silence under the vast insecurity blanket. In addition to all the direct and indirect beneficiaries of the military establishment, many people with no connection still cheer it on. They have been subject to relentless propaganda forthe military and its wars from the government, the print and digital press, TV, movies, sports shows, parades, and computer games—the latter teach children that killing is fun.
The indoctrination goes down easily. It has had a head start in the educational system that glorifies the violent history of the nation. Our schools are full of in-house tutoring, STEM programs, and fun robotics teams personally conducted by employees of the weapons makers. Young children may not understand all the connections, but they tend to remember the logos. The JROTC programs, imparting militaristic values, enroll far more children than the ones who will become future officers. The extremely well-funded recruitment efforts in schools include “fun” simulations of warfare.
There is a worldwide supporting cast for the complex that includes NATO, other alliances, defense ministries, foreign military industries, and bases, but that is a story for another day.
The millions sheltered under our thick and broad blanket, including the enlistees under the prickly part of it, are not to blame. Some people may be thrilled by the idea of death and destruction. However, most are just trying to earn a living, keep their organization or rust belt afloat, or be accepted into polite company. They would prefer constructive work or income from healthy sources. Yet many have been indoctrinated to believe that militarism is normal and necessary. For those who consider change to be essential if life on this planet has a chance at survival, it is important to see all the ways that the military- industrial-congressional-almost everything-complex is being sustained.
“Free market economy” is a myth. In addition to the huge nonprofit (non-market) sector, government intervention is substantial, not only in the gigantic military, but in agriculture, education, health care, infrastructure, economic development (!), et al. For the same trillions we could have a national economy that repairs the environment, provides a fine standard of living and cultural opportunities for all, and works for peace on earth.
Joan Roelofs is Professor Emerita of Political Science, Keene State College, New Hampshire. She is the author of Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (SUNY Press, 2003) and Greening Cities (Rowman and Littlefield, 1996). She is the translator of Victor Considerant’s Principles of Socialism (Maisonneuve Press, 2006), and with Shawn P. Wilbur, of Charles Fourier’s anti-war fantasy, The World War of Small Pastries (Autonomedia, 2015). A community education short course on the military industrial complex is on her website, and may be used for similar purposes.
Site: www.joanroelofs.wordpress.com Contact: joan.roelofs@myfairpoint.net
%20(1).jpeg)
.jpeg)
