This is it. I have blogged that it looked like the Secretary of State Rex Tillerson would be leaving shortly. I was wrong. But he needs to go for the sake of US national security interests. That he is clueless about the purpose and mission of the US State Department when he has been at this job for over 5 months, and as an ex-CEO of a huge company Exxon, is a major disappointment.
It is bad enough that Mr. Tillerson has signaled his intent to have the state department down play the importance of the its mission to promote human rights and democracy around the world. But now, he is turning his back on the former DNI leader, the US top spy James Clapper’s congressional testimony that there is an urgent need for an arm of the government to counter the propaganda efforts of ISIS and Russia’s penchant for fake news.
This secretary has accepted the republican President Donald Trump’s recommendation which slashes the US state department’s budget without a peep. Numerous crucial positions are still vacant. It is no wonder that there has been a mass exodus of diplomats leaving the US State Department as the work environment is a disaster.
On Background…
It is important to note that while Exxon was under his watch, several human rights’ lawsuits have been filed against it and are still pending. Mr. Tillerson had a history of antipathy towards the US Department of State.
This became very apparent as he, as Exxon’s CEO, fought to acquire a waiver to continue Exxon’s work in Russia after the US imposed 2014 sanctions against it because of Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Crimea, Ukraine and its illegal annexation. In 2011, Mr. Tillerson had negotiated a very lucrative deal with the the Russian oil company, Rosneft for oil exploration in its Arctic area with a value upwards of $500 billion dollars. This was put on hold because of the US sanctions against Russia.
Both he and the president have been lone voices, strongly supportive of lifting the 2014 Russian sanctions.
Wait until you learn about the rest of this story…
On August 2, 2019, Nahal Toosi of Politico penned the following report, “Tillerson spurns $80 million to counter ISIS, Russian propaganda.”
Excerpts:
“Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is resisting the pleas of State Department officials to spend nearly $80 million allocated by Congress for fighting terrorist propaganda and Russian disinformation.”
“It is highly unusual for a Cabinet secretary to turn down money for his department. But more than five months into his tenure, Tillerson has not issued a simple request for the money earmarked for the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, $60 million of which is now parked at the Pentagon. Another $19.8 million sits untouched at the State Department as Tillerson’s aides reject calls from career diplomats and members of Congress to put the money to work against America’s adversaries.”
“The $60 million will expire on Sept. 30 if not transferred to State by then, current and former State Department officials told POLITICO.”
“The struggle over the money is a case study in Tillerson’s approach to managing the State Department and the frustration it is engendering among American diplomats. Current and former U.S. officials call it the latest example of a severe slowdown in department decision-making; of Tillerson’s reliance on a coterie of political aides who distrust State’s career staffers; and a casualty of President Donald Trump’s intention to slash State’s budget, which has Tillerson looking for ways to reshape the department and spend less money, not more.”
“Sources cited another sensitive factor at play: Russia. One Tillerson aide, R.C. Hammond, suggested the money is unwelcome because any extra funding for programs to counter Russian media influence would anger Moscow, according to a former senior State Department official.”
“This is an extraordinary example of the dysfunction that is ripping through the State Department,” said Brett Bruen, a former U.S. diplomat in contact with State employees involved in the funding fight. “What we’re seeing is a small group of people with very thin knowledge making all the decisions in a very centralized and isolated process. It causes unnecessary delays and confusion.”
“Hammond said the funding issue is receiving prompt attention and that officials seeking the money had not presented a clear plan for how to spend it—an assertion denied by the former senior State Department official.”
“The Global Engagement Center is an interagency unit based at the State Department that was created in spring 2016. It replaced the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, and its staff of about 80 is responsible for coordinating governmentwide efforts to counter the online messages of terrorist groups such as the Islamic State.”
“A Pentagon spending bill signed into law by former President Barack Obama in December broadened the center’s mandate to include battling state-sponsored disinformation campaigns by countries such as China, North Korea and Russia. U.S. intelligence officials say Moscow used fake news reports and malicious Twitter accounts to influence the 2016 election, and lawmakers in both parties have called for a more robust U.S. response.”
“Aside from its governmental coordinating work, the center also partners with the private sector to test novel ways to defeat false information spread by U.S. adversaries.One project has employed guerrilla marketing tactics to place anti-terrorism videos in the Facebook feeds of young people showing an interest in jihadi media. To help pay for such efforts, the legislation in December authorized the Defense Department to send the State Department $60 million in fiscal year 2017 and $60 million in fiscal year 2018, but the secretary of state needs to request the money from the Pentagon.”
“Over the last five to 10 years, there’s been a tsunami of disinformation and anti-American propaganda around the world,” said Rick Stengel, who, as a former undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, oversaw the center. “The Global Engagement Center is one of the few, if only, areas in the U.S. government that could be tasked with countering and rebutting disinformation against America.”
“State Department officials began urging Tillerson to seek the first $60 million from the Defense Department soon after he took office in February, according to the former senior State Department official.”
“But they quickly found themselves mired in a new, confusing and bottlenecked decision-making process imposed by Tillerson’s top aides. For example, officials involved with the center first put in their request in an “action memo,” the standard document sent to the secretary of state when a decision is required. Tillerson’s aides retorted that he “didn’t like being told what to do,” the former senior State official said, and ordered that the request be refashioned as an “information memo.”
“Further stalling the request were staffing shifts among Tillerson’s top aides. Eventually, the officials’ request reached Hammond, a former public relations professional who served as a spokesman for Newt Gingrich’s 2012 presidential campaign. At the State Department, Hammond serves as a spokesman for Tillerson—but is also a member of the department’s policy planning staff, making decisions on substantive issues.”
“Hammond threw up objections to the request on multiple fronts, the former senior State official said. Hammond indicated to officials involved with the Global Engagement Center that with the department facing potential budget and staffing cuts, it didn’t make sense to take an infusion of new funds, the former senior State official said. Hammond also questioned why the U.S. doesn’t ask other governments, particularly in Muslim countries, to play a larger role in the information battle.”
“Hammond further expressed hesitation about needling the Russians at a time when Tillerson was trying to find common ground with the Kremlin on sensitive matters such as the war in Syria. The Kremlin-backed news outlet Sputnik has compared the Global Engagement Center to George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.”
“Hammond said the secretary is in the process of working through disagreements with Russia, and this is not consistent with what we’re trying to do,” the former senior State official said.”
“Most of the people interviewed for this story requested anonymity, either to protect their own jobs or to safeguard others they are in touch with at the State Department and the White House. And few issues are as sensitive as Trump’s relationship with Russia. The president has questioned the intelligence community’s belief that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help him, while Tillerson, a former ExxonMobil CEO who has long known Russian President Vladimir Putin, has sought to improve relations with Moscow.”
“Despite speculation that Tillerson may wish to overhaul or eliminate the Global Engagement Center, Hammond told POLITICO that there are “no plans” to do so.”
“Regarding Russia,” he added, “we have not sought to reduce efforts to spotlight and combat Moscow’s ‘active measures’ or information activities.”
“Hammond said Tillerson hadn’t sought the $60 million because Global Engagement Center officials hadn’t offered a vision for how to spend it. “They put in a request in for additional funding. We asked them to map out a plan of how they would spend the money,” Hammond said.”
“But the former senior State official denied that was the case. He said the center’s leaders had crafted a spending plan after consulting with experts at the National Security Council, the Defense Department and those working in the regional bureaus of the State Department. Hammond and other Tillerson aides dismissed that effort, according to the former senior State official, saying that any such plan needed to be approved by the State Department’s policy planning office.”
“Hammond and other sources said Tillerson is aware of the funding requests. But some officials involved said it’s not clear if the secretary understands all the details or is aware of his aides’ machinations.”
“Current and former State Department officials are particularly mystified as to why, aside from the $60 million at the Pentagon, the Global Engagement Center has also been denied access to $19.8 million dedicated to fighting the messaging of the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. That $19.8 million is in the State Department’s coffers but has yet to be directed to the Global Engagement Center.”
“Whether to fund the Global Engagement Center is one of numerous decisions on hold at State. Current and former officials told POLITICO that up to 200 “action memos” have piled up in the executive suites at Foggy Bottom. The backlog is unusually large; in one instance, according to a former State Department official briefed on the matter, a bureau asked months in advance for approval of talking points for use at an international conference. The response came too late, leaving U.S. officials unable to make meaningful remarks at the event.”
“Tillerson is said to be a methodical thinker whose step-by-step decision-making reflects his training as an engineer. His CEO experience seemed a potential asset when Trump tapped him to lead the 75,000-employee State Department. But critics say Tillerson hasn’t fully grasped that the U.S. diplomatic apparatus has many moving parts that need simultaneous attention, so decisions can stack up fast.”
“Tillerson’s inability to fill the vast majority of leadership slots at State, including undersecretaries and assistant secretaries also means more decisions land in his office. At the same time, Tillerson is trying to get a sense of how State uses its resources, and he’s hinted that he’s reluctant to make major decisions on hiring or new programming until he’s developed a plan for reorganizing the department.”
“They use the reorganization as an excuse to not act on anything,” one former State official complained. “That’s why people doubt the motivations of the reorganization. They think it’s all about starving the beast.”
“Hammond insisted that major decisions are made quickly and that Tillerson needed to prioritize urgent threats.”
“Issues are given diligent attention and are processed as fast as possible,” Hammond said.”
“Supporters of the Global Engagement Center say it should be a high priority given the enmity between Washington and Moscow, not to mention the ongoing worries over terrorist recruiting online.”
“Multiple sources said their read of the law suggests that if the first $60 million chunk at the Pentagon is not transferred to State by Sept. 30, it will no longer be available for use. What’s less clear is whether the money, if transferred, would have to be spent before Sept. 30 or if it can also be spent in the following fiscal year. At that point, the second $60 million also can be transferred to the State Department, if Tillerson requests it.”
“Last month, Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio pressed Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan on whether Tillerson considers the Global Engagement Center a priority and urged that hiring caps be lifted so the center can expand.”
Sullivan called the center “a priority” for Tillerson, saying it is “an important part of our mission.”
“After Tillerson testified at a June 13 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Portman submitted written questions asking about the fate of the $60 million. He has yet to receive an answer. “
Gronda Morin 
I suppose Tillerson does not want to appear a hypocrite since he knows “ISIS”, “IS”, Al-Qaeda, Daesh is a fabrication of the West, created to have an imaginary enemy to fight with. How else to keep the middle east war going when Sadam and Osama were defeated… create new enemies! Perpetual war is very lucrative for the military industrial complex and US hegemony continues.
This article explains very well:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881
LikeLike
Also very timely article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-calls-for-ending-us-led-terror-bombing-on-the-phony-pretext-of-combating-isis/5601753?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
LikeLike
Dear 1EarthUnited,
To be a competent researcher, one has to avoid the trap of relying on just one source. Read something with another point of view.
I found this reference for you which is from Rational Wiki:
Globalresearch is an “anti-Western” website that can’t distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk — and so publishes both. It’s basically the moonbat equivalent to Infowars or WND.
While some of GlobalResearch’s articles discuss legitimate humanitarian concerns, its view of science, economics, and geopolitics is conspiracist — if something goes wrong, the Jews West didit! The site has long been a crank magnet: If you disagree with “Western” sources on 9/11, or HAARP, or vaccines, or H1N1, or climate change, or anything published by the “mainstream” media, then GlobalResearch is guaranteed to have a page you will love.
The website (under the domain names globalresearch.ca(link), globalresearch.org(link), globalresearch.com(link), and sister site mondialisation.ca(link)) is run by the Montreal-based non-profit The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) founded by Michel Chossudovsky,[2][3] a former professor of economics at the University of Ottawa, Canada.[4]
Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites GlobalResearch, they are almost certainly wrong.
Hugs, Gronda
LikeLiked by 1 person
You may very well be right, I have not vetted this site thoroughly.
LikeLike
Dear 1EarthUnited,
Thanks for the reference.
I do not view Al-Qaeda on equal terms WITH GROUPS like ISIS (DAESH). I place ISIS on the same level as NAZIS during WWII. This group and ideology with its expansionists’ dreams are so extreme that its success would make any region that it overcomes, resistant to any possibility of human rights advancements.
Like the NAZIS, ignoring ISIS is not an option, period.
Hugs, Gronda
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would not advocate ignoring any terrorist group, esp radical jihadist like ISIS. However, I would prefer that the US please stop financing and supporting these “moderate rebels” and wrecking havoc in the middle east. Other than regime change and defending the petrodollar, what business does US have being in Syria? Syria, a sovereign country, never invited the US in to “fight terrorism”. On the contrary Bashar al-Assad views US as an invading force and enlisted the aid of Russia to keep the West in check.
Even democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard criticized US policy in Syria when she made a personal trip to see what’s going on for herself. Here’s an eye opening video of her account:
After returning from Syria, Tulsi Gabbard pushes bill to outlaw govt funding of terrorists, sadly it was voted down.
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/gabbards-stop-arming-terrorists-act-introduced-senate
LikeLike
Dear 1EartUnited,
i am only convinced that ISIS has to go. Unfortunately ISIS had managed to be located there in large numbers. On this point I wish to respectfully disagree with you.
As for any action regarding President Assad, the US should not be involved unless it is in a position to insure a better governing body in his place.
Hugs, Gronda
LikeLike
Yes ISIS’ presence in large numbers is disconcerting. But logic dictates that if terrorist groups stop receiving funding, they wouldn’t exist in the first place, or not for long. The US don’t even need to “fight the terrorist”, or remove leaders that we don’t agree with, just stop supporting them! Sometimes solutions are really that simple, unless of course US leadership WANT perpetually profitable wars, then that’s the situation we have now.
BTW, Trump is doing a horrible job in Syria, not even winning political points, he mercilessly bomb civilians while going after so called US backed terrorist and mercenaries. He’s no better than Obama whom he viciously criticized going into Syria.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-coalition-air-strikes-isis-russia-kill-more-civilians-march-middle-east-iraq-syria-network-for-a7663881.html
LikeLike
Dear 1EarthUnited,
I respectfully continue to disagree with your premise period regarding US FIGHTING ISIS in Syria. Admittedly this is a complicated problem. And I can’t buy into the concept where just stopping funding of Syrian rebels who were opposing ISIS and President Assad was a realistic solution..
In the middle east, countries and leaders live in a world of grievances, true or not; conspiracy theories; ulterior goals very different from what various leaders state for the record.
For instance, for years, I’ve done enough research to prove Turkey was assisting ISIS while denying this to the USA because the Turks hate the Kurds worse than ISIS. For a long time it was Turkey as well as the Sunni Saudi Arabian leaders who wanted Syria’s President Assad gone because he is of a Shia sect and both worried about Syria aligning with Iran of the Shia faith. Meanwhile President Putin is supporting Assad because he has an agreement with him to expand the Russian naval base in Tartus , Syria which he desperately wants for its location on warm Mediterranean waters.
My personal opinion only, is that I would like a permanent region provided for the Kurds; and peace, stability and restoration to occur in Syria with Muslim peace keeping troops to allow for this transition.
Hugs, Gronda
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Gronda, thanks so much for taking time to break down your assessment of the middle east. You’re right of course, it is a complicated mess, different agendas, warring factions and power struggles. Altho I still respectfully disagree- that the US should have no business in Syria, Libya, Iraq… geopolitics being what it is, our troops are there so we the ppl will just have to deal with it. (If the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds want to kill one another, do we really have the right to interfere and take sides? If so, then why are we not in Africa stopping regional guerrillas from killing each other, perhaps b/c there’s no oil or profit to be made there?)
I remember Obama mentioning in ’09 that the Iraqi war is over and we’ll be pulling out, only to see him reverse positions and increase troops. Oh well, it’s all kinda senseless to me.
LikeLike
Dear !EarthUnited,
I place anything that globalreseach.ca in the category of fake news like Infowars. Be careful when you read this material. Verify the data with other sources.
I can’t agree with whatever is alleged in their reports. While I may read your references because I like to be informed as to what is out there, I agree with little of its content, I can tell fake news when I see it. I could write a book on why this report is fake news but I don’t want to at this point. I may blog about this site in the near future.
Hugs, Gronda
LikeLike
Someone must urgently find a way to release this money to the Global Engagement Centre so it can start fighting back against America’s adversaries………..the Republicans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear David Prosser,
I will be tweeting this blog to every republican US senator. This is too important.
Hugs, Gronda
LikeLike
I must take a step back from opposing Trump & Co. to acknowledge the over-arching issues of U.S. dominance and hegemony everywhere in the world, and realize that the situation in Syria and other hotspots can be credited to our friends in Israel, the real reason we are so much against Assad. That is not a comprehensive statement, of course…. I have a lot of research to do, have been sort of resting on my … ahem, not really laurels … and background. Some knowledge of the atrocious behavior of our intelligence agencies in Central America in the 90s, and whatever is going on with Maduro in Venezuela. Not to mention the US history with Iran.
I see what 1EarthUnited is talking about… the alarm bells began ringing in my old head when my thinking landed on the Global Engagement Center…. an organization which can bring no relief to the terrorist situation. Aligned with the CIA and friends. Good lord…its business as usual in Washington, with a Mad Man in charge…. Trump may not be the problem, but a symptom
http://www.valuewalk.com/2017/01/global-engagement-center-orwell/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear 1EarthUnited,
To be a competent researcher, one has to avoid the trap of relying on just one source. Read something with another point of view.
The following is from RationalWiki:
Globalresearch is an “anti-Western” website that can’t distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk — and so publishes both. It’s basically the moonbat equivalent to Infowars or WND.
While some of GlobalResearch’s articles discuss legitimate humanitarian concerns, its view of science, economics, and geopolitics is conspiracist — if something goes wrong, the Jews West didit! The site has long been a crank magnet: If you disagree with “Western” sources on 9/11, or HAARP, or vaccines, or H1N1, or climate change, or anything published by the “mainstream” media, then GlobalResearch is guaranteed to have a page you will love.
The website (under the domain names globalresearch.ca(link), globalresearch.org(link), globalresearch.com(link), and sister site mondialisation.ca(link)) is run by the Montreal-based non-profit The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) founded by Michel Chossudovsky,[2][3] a former professor of economics at the University of Ottawa, Canada.[4]
Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites GlobalResearch, they are almost certainly wron
I found this reference for you which is from Rational Wiki:
Globalresearch is an “anti-Western” website that can’t distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk — and so publishes both. It’s basically the moonbat equivalent to Infowars or WND.
While some of GlobalResearch’s articles discuss legitimate humanitarian concerns, its view of science, economics, and geopolitics is conspiracist — if something goes wrong, the Jews West didit! The site has long been a crank magnet: If you disagree with “Western” sources on 9/11, or HAARP, or vaccines, or H1N1, or climate change, or anything published by the “mainstream” media, then GlobalResearch is guaranteed to have a page you will love.
The website (under the domain names globalresearch.ca(link), globalresearch.org(link), globalresearch.com(link), and sister site mondialisation.ca(link)) is run by the Montreal-based non-profit The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) founded by Michel Chossudovsky,[2][3] a former professor of economics at the University of Ottawa, Canada.[4]
Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites GlobalResearch, they are almost certainly wrong.
Hugs, Gronda
LikeLike
RationalWiki ? Great reference! http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/RationalWiki This exactly illustrates my point … that all reporting is both Pro and Con.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Gradmama2011,
RationalWiki is a liberal leaning resource but I know this when I use them. But Rational Wiki is not not only source referring to globalresearch/ca as fake news. Quora does as well.
My favorite source that I’ve been using is http://dashboard.securingdemocracy.org/about
Hugs, Gronda
LikeLike
Dear Gradmama2011,
While I believe that DDT is a definite problem I can agree that he is also a symptom, but my analysis differs from what is asserted in your reference.Thanks for sharing.
Hugs, Gronda
LikeLike
I never state information without good analysis. Even the most frivolous or biased reports of an given situation contain grains of truth. Everything…everything…is biased to one extent or another. I learned long ago that pretending to be an expert on any subject is likely to make me look foolish when it becomes necessary to state that maybe I didn’t really know what I was talking about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear Gradmama2011,
And I am free to respectfully disagree with a great analysis on occasion.
I always assume that my analysis can be wrong and I have been wrong on more than one occasion, but I am willing to admit it. For instance, I was one of those idiots who truly believed that Donald Trump could never become the US president and I was wrong, wrong, wrong. It happens.
Hugs, Gronda
LikeLike
ha! The other day I tried to tell Jill that John McCain was an astronaut. Ha! she didn’t think that was right, but graciously accepted my mea culpa.
LikeLiked by 1 person
as they say, ignorance is bliss. If I were physically and financially able I’d sign on with a human rights group I trust for one or more of there “reality tours” to the region. I highly recommend first-hand experience and observation…a week in the trenches, so to speak, can teach volumes! A few hundred dollars plus transportation should put one in the middle where they can see what is going on. Yes, I have done just that…several times, in the 90s and thereabouts…not the Middle East, but the location is immaterial. It is what it is, and if we don’t “get it” then we don’t get it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Gradmama2011, Yes there are two sides to every story, and a good reporter should acknowledge and assess both with a rational, well reasoned mind. Ideally one should report just the facts with as little bias and/or additions/ omissions as possible. Of course being human, our minds are conditioned to being polarized which distorts our viewpoint and perspective. Being right or wrong is relative to our state of mind, the zeitgeist of our collective consciousness at any given point in time, which often time is quite fickle.
It is wise to keep an open mind and not adhere to any given position, esp from any state-run media source or alternative news source for that matter. We must be better than that and try to use our innate intelligence, and much discernment. New evidence may come to light anytime, which may negate our previous long cherished beliefs. I try not to cling to any one position, but rather look objectively from a distance, detach emotionally and try making sense of any issue from an increasingly nonsensical world.
I’ve come to accept and even appreciate opposing viewpoints, it expands my understanding of the human condition, and perhaps allow me to affect change for the better. Right now I admit I don’t have the answers to much of the problems in this world. At least some problems resolve itself if we would simply stop fighting one another b/c of ideology or dogma. Imagine how much Congress may accomplish if Dems and Repubs actually put aside differences and work together. What a novel idea, if we could only….
LikeLike
Business as usual in the middle east is exactly how Washington wants to play it. There’s simply too much money and profit to just leave. CIA and Pentagon slush funds are financed by very lucrative opium trade… why else would US soldiers be guarding Afghani poppy fields? Iraq invasion was suppose to be a stepping stone for attack on Iran, but Russia said no chance! Iran wants to escape from the petrodollar and get paid in gold, for US oil interests and Washington… those are fighting words!
Regarding US support of ISIS in Syria, Tulsi Gabbard’s account seems credible, and she’s a Democrat Senator.
Also the Guardian has a piece on this topic:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq
Main stream news understandably would not cover such news b/c it is antithetical to the narrative that Washington is spinning for public consumption. How can the US possibly justify supporting terrorists?
LikeLike
Dear 1EarthUnited,
This reference is pretty much on point. The minute the US put its soldiers toes into the middle east, IT WAS A CASE OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. And yes, the US with others have made a mess of things. After the lost treasure of so many lives including US soldiers and trillions of dollars, the region is for all intensive purposes, no safer.
This does not change the necessity of ousting ISIS from the middle east. Other than helping to establish peace and restoration, most of us want the USA out of the area.
Hugs, Gronda
LikeLike
Some may even argue it was a case of INTENDED consequences. US middle eastern policy commits troops and gets mired indefinitely. Perhaps Eisenhower was right in his Farewell Address to the Nation when he referenced the business of war.
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
George Orwell once wrote that, “It’s not a matter of whether the war is not real or if it is Victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia but to keep the very structure of society intact.”
LikeLike