WAR STIMULUS DEAD
Here is another subject I have to
keep revisiting as I continue to see offhand comments to the contrary, which
REALLY frigging bug the crap out of me. Like the “Venezuela is socialist and
hence failing” meme. I can’t believe
people suck up that intelligence services propaganda and give it nary a
thought. They didn’t learn with Cuba, or
Iran nor North Korea. You rail against
MSM, know they are lying liars and yet pick and choose to believe anything that
titillates your preconceived notions.
EVERYTHING they say are lies.
They are Pravda. It behooves the
PTB to discredit targeted states.
*
Anyway, before I go off on a three
additional article rant-and you know I will!- a return to topic on war as a
racket and as an economic stimulus. The
standard War Of Northern Colonization explanation is “Free Da Slaves”. Which, seriously, I cannot believe anyone
buys into. The North hated Darkies. Almost every northern state had anti-Black
residency and work laws. But of course,
that is a bit obscure for historical knowledge, so we must simply ask ourselves
that simple question “who benefits?”. A
Nicaraguan occupation by Marines pays a fruit company and the Senator they
elected. Who gets paid with
emancipation?
*
Nobody. Nobody is going to go to war, risking their
lives, to “right a wrong”. Individuals
might go to war for fun. Just to
fight. Such as going to Spain and
volunteering. But not nations as a
whole. Someone must be benefiting. Wars are expensive and deadly. Why would Yankee Scum bleed the treasury and
its armed forces, and hence weakening itself towards other powers ( hint:
England ), just because “slavery to un-cool, yo!”? Are you that retarded? We didn’t go and invade Europe Just Coz we
felt bad for their loses to the Nazi’s.
*
We went over there because the war
was the best thing for the economy. As
individuals, three hots and a cot even while getting shot was better than
starving at home ( and now you know why with all his socialism FDR didn’t feed
people. Imperial conquest was prepped
for long in advance ). For the economy
as a whole, war was great for full employment and production. Eighty years previously, war was what turned
us into an industrial economy. Did you
ever stop and ponder how the slavery question impacted the two economies?
*
Wonder how Alvin Toffler got so
popular so fast, from nowhere? He wasn’t
much more than a freelance writer prior to the publication of “Future
Shock”. Yeah, he was a talented writer,
don’t misunderstand. But he came along
when computers were expensive calculators and he foresaw all of our glorious
technological future? In retrospect, to
me it seems like he was fed from a think tank, propaganda pushing us to accept
a post-industrial future ( planting the embryo ). He did have plenty of good historical
insights, one of which was that the Civil War was an industrial war over
agriculture.
*
The Industrial Revolution was at
least as old as our Revolutionary War, but we were still invested in an agriculture
economy. Even all the water powered
mills and trains and water transportation up in GottDamnYankeeLand were still
heavily dependent on agriculture as feedstock.
And the South had far too much power over the North economically, as
they were dominant in agriculture. The
South wanted the North to pay its fair share in taxes supporting the government
and the North wanted the South to give them all the agricultural commodities at
no to extremely low cost.
*
The macro forces at play, of course,
was that the new imperial economic paradigm was industrial. America has ALWAYS been imperial, but we just
called it Western Expansion back then.
The South had expanded right up to its natural hydrologic borders and
was screwed just from that alone. The
North could expand indefinitely utilizing many more resources. Growth IS wealth and the South couldn’t grow
but the North could. Slavery had nothing
to do with it except as propaganda and the added benefit that you can’t let
slaves operate your capital equipment-it was far too valuable.
*
Britain didn’t outlaw slavery because
they were nice people ( ask the Irish ).
They did it because a worker gives up his freedom for wages but a slave
fights for his freedom. That leaves
aside the question of rebellions against becoming wage slaves in the first place,
of course. But once accomplished,
slavery had no use in an industrial economy.
One almost has to wonder how much financial backing the industrialists
gave abolitionists. There were hardly
any Blacks up North, so why did factory owners care? They wanted a broke and destabilized South so
as to offer dirt cheap agriculture commodities.
*
A South with slavery had high fixed
costs and high profits for slave owners.
A South without slavery would be the equivalent of the Irish ghettos in
New York and other industrial cities ( remember that the Bronx and Brooklyn at
one time had factories-one factor in the metro’s 70’s misfortunes ). Just a bunch of starving freemen willing to
sell their labor cheaply. Remember where
the desire to free slaves comes from-greed and viewing all races of the lower
classes as cattle. If you don’t want to
believe that because you want to rap your way into the 1%, you are deluded.
*
Pre-Civil War the era was messy and
multidimensional and multifaceted, in the economic, political and cultural (
hey! Just like today. It ain’t JUST about red or blue now, either. Follow the money ). The Industrialists might have just been
content with propaganda, playing the long game.
Lincoln might JUST have been (s)elected by the rail barons for
government subsidized track. They might
not have realized how toxic he was to the South ( probably far worse than Trump
). Or, they could have. Who knows?
Even going to first hand accounts of the era, there was still bias.
*
Even if war was a surprise to
everyone, it was the first Industrial War ( logistically, at first, then
perhaps later tactically and strategically.
It was messy and anachronisms abounded, but it was also amazing how
quickly it became a Total War economically.
Only the lack of oil kept it static, just as it would in WWI ). Where before war was costly and limited to land
for its payoff, war became profitable on to itself. Even to the nation funding it, not just those
in the supply industry. War became more
costly than ever, but it was also profitable.
*
Bankers and industrialists were the
beneficiaries, but for the nation as a whole, conquest begat more industrial
power allowing more conquest. Iron and
coal ( later on, steel and oil ) was an exponential power over wheat and
oxen. It wasn’t as if factories and
metal weapons hadn’t been around forever.
It was that now, machines replaced labor. That was the crucial difference. Grain might be renewable, more so than coal,
but just as grain replaced hunting and gathering with its superior stored
calories, carbon fuels were a military technology with far more concentrated
energy.
*
Tomorrow, I’ll work towards covering
war economies, the break down of the model, the inevitability of a professional
high tech force and how those are incapable of duplicating the economic
benefits of industrialized war.
( .Y. )
( today's related Amazon link click here )
*
Please
support Bison by buying through the Amazon links here ( or from http://bisonprepper.com/2.html or www.bisonbulk.blogspot.com ). Or PayPal www.paypal.me/jimd303
*** Unless you are in extreme poverty, spend a buck a month here, by the above donation methods ( I get 4% of the Amazon sale, so you need to buy $25 worth for me to get my $1 ) or mail me some cash/check/money order or buy a book ( web site for free books, Amazon to pay just as a donation vehicle ).
*** My e-mail is: jimd303@reagan.com My address is: James M Dakin, 181 W Bullion Rd #12, Elko NV 89801-4184 ***E-Mail me if you want your name added to the weekly e-newsletter subscriber list.
* By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there
War, like bad weather is always "around". It's familiar reoccuring tones with near regularity gives an astute minionite a head's up over the other refugees. As war is a more economic impetus versus emotional or tribal causation, minions should seek to use it for their own interests. Not falling into the ranks of volunteers marching in parades, just seeking to capitalize on the events. Operate a whore house or saloon off post for the brigands. Be a black market or looted contraband intermediary. Have scavenger kids clean up gear quickly after chaos of conflicts. Etc. If things go hot in CONUS or your village there will be opportunities to be on the profit or advantages curve of events. Hiding underground or being fed soylent in camps are not opportunities that are for one's betterment and might as well get your share.
ReplyDeleteSlavery is dumb from an economic perspective.
ReplyDeleteA sh**lord I was reading said he'd go onto some media platform where you talk to random people. He reckons he'd ask African Americans why they think *anyone* would want them as a slave. Or some nonsense like that. Apparently they'd be blown away with the realisation that they wouldn't cut it. The smarter amongst us realise that if we're no good as slaves what use do powerful people have for us?
I feel like a slave. As stefan Molyneux (that name belongs on a Gillette razor user) once opined "free range slaves". I definitely pay more in tax than I get back in value because .gov spends the dosh on minorities for the feelz. LOL it's funny to me because I'd rather laugh than get angry
As for getting more back than you pay, that is impossible. The government "borrows" the money for spending, meaning they only pay the interest and never the principle. Even straight up welfare bitches are just bought votes and pacified peasants. And the rich who pay 60% of all taxes are only paying money on a crooked system they abuse. It actually is funny when folks get worked up about it ( I've done it too ) because aside from sabotaging the actual physical infrastructure, we are all participants.
DeleteI would be of the opinion that profiting off the misery of others during peacetime is tolerated but during war I would think u would end up on the wrong end of a bayonet.
Delete2:48
You could end up on a bayonet anyway, for no reason. But point taken.
DeleteDid you hear about Lincoln’s response after recovering from his 4 year drinking binge?
ReplyDelete“I freed who?” :D
From what I've heard of his wife, he had to keep drinking :)
Delete