Advocating World War Three Is Just Mainstream Punditry Now by Ms Caitlin Johnstone!
(2022-10-29 at 01:58:31 )

Advocating World War Three Is Just Mainstream Punditry Now by Ms Caitlin Johnstone!

Listen to a reading of this article:

Mainstream punditry in the latter half of 2022 is rife with op-eds arguing that the United States needs to vastly increase military spending because a world war is about to erupt, and they always frame it as though this would be something that happens to the United States, as though its own actions would have nothing to do with it. As though it would not be the direct result of the United States-centralized empire continually accelerating towards that horrific event while refusing every possible diplomatic off-ramp due to its inability to relinquish its goal of total unipolar planetary domination.

The latest example of this trend is an article titled "Could America Win a New World War? - What It Would Take to Defeat Both China and Russia" published by Foreign Affairs, a magazine that is owned and operated by the supremely influential think tank Council on Foreign Relations.

"The United States and its allies must plan for how to simultaneously win wars in Asia and Europe, as unpalatable as the prospect may seem," writes the articles author Thomas G Mahnken, adding that in some ways "the United States and its allies will have an advantage in any simultaneous war" in those two continents.

Western arms systems are among the best in the world-but to win a potential conflict against both China and Russia, the United States will also need to develop new fighting techniques, writes Thomas Mahnken.-Foreign Affairs (ForeignAffairs) October 27, 2022

But Mr. Mahnken does not claim a world war against Russia and China would be a walk in the park; he also argues that in order to win such a war the United States will need to - you guessed it - drastically increase its military spending.

"The United States clearly needs to increase its defense manufacturing capacity and speed," Mr. Mahnken writes. "In the short term, that involves adding shifts to existing factories. With more time, it involves expanding factories and opening new production lines. To do both, Congress will have to act now to allocate more money to increase manufacturing."

But exploding United States weapons spending is still inadequate, Mr. Mahnken argues, saying that "the United States should work with its allies to increase their military production and the size of their weapons and munitions stockpiles" as well.

Mr. Mahnken says this world war could be sparked "if China initiated a military operation to take Taiwan, forcing the United States and its allies to respond," as though there would be no other options on the table besides launching into nuclear age World War Three to defend an island next to the Chinese mainland that calls itself the Republic of China. He writes that "Moscow, meanwhile, could decide that with the United States bogged down in the western Pacific, it could get away with invading more of Europe," demonstrating the bizarre Schrödingers cat western propaganda paradox that President Putin is always simultaneously (A) getting destroyed and humiliated in Ukraine and (B) on the cusp of waging hot war with NATO.

It is crazy how many people are making entire careers out of advocating the worst thing that could possibly happen.-Caitlin Johnstone (caitoz) October 27, 2022

Again, this is just the latest in an increasingly common genre of mainstream western punditry.

In "The skeptics are wrong: The United States can confront both China and Russia," The Washington Posts Josh Rogin wags his finger at Democrats who think aggressions against Russia should be prioritized and Republicans who think that military and financial attention should be devoted to China, arguing porque no los dos?

In "Could The United States Military Fight Russia And China At The Same Time?", 19FortyFives Robert Farley answers in the affirmative, writing that "the immense fighting power of the United States armed forces would not be inordinately strained by the need to wage war in both theaters" and concluding that "the United States can fight both Russia and China at once.. for a while, and with the help of some friends."

In "Can the United States Take on China, Iran and Russia All at Once?" Bloombergs Hal Brands answers that it would be very difficult and recommends escalating in Ukraine and Taiwan and selling Israel more advanced weaponry to get a step ahead of Russia, China and Iran respectively.

In "International Relations Theory Suggests Great-Power War Is Coming," the Atlantic Councils Matthew Kroenig writes for Foreign Policy that a global democracies-versus-autocracies showdown is coming "with the United States and its status quo-oriented democratic allies in NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia on one side and the revisionist autocracies of China, Russia, and Iran on the other," and that aspiring foreign policy experts should adjust their expectations accordingly.

When they are not arguing that World War Three is coming and we must all prepare to fight it and win, they are arguing that a global conflict is already upon us and we must begin acting like it, as in last months New Yorker piece "What if We are Already Fighting the Third World War with Russia?"

New: The skeptics are wrong: The United States can confront both China and Russia-Josh Rogin (joshrogin) August 4, 2022

These Beltway swamp monster pontifications are directed not just at the general public but at government policymakers and strategists as well, and it should disturb us all that their audiences are being encouraged to view a global conflict of unspeakable horror like it is some kind of natural disaster that people do not have any control over.

Every measure should be taken to avoid a world war in the nuclear age. If it looks like that is where we are headed, the answer is not to ramp up weapons production and create entire industries dedicated to making it happen, the answer is diplomacy, de-escalation and detente.

These pundits frame the rise of a multipolar world as something that must inevitably be accompanied by an explosion of violence and human suffering, when in reality we would only wind up there as a result of decisions that were made by thinking human beings on both sides.

It does not have to be this way.

There is no omnipotent deity decreeing from on high that we must live in a world where governments brandish armageddon weapons at each other and humanity must either submit to Washington,D.C. or resign itself to cataclysmic violence of planetary consequence.

We could just have a world where the peoples of all nations get along with each other and work together toward the common good rather than working to dominate and subjugate each other.

As Jeffrey Sachs recently put it, "The single biggest mistake of president Biden was to say "the greatest struggle of the world is between democracies and autocracies". The real struggle of the world is to live together and overcome our common crises of environment and inequality."

MUST WATCH: The brilliant Professor Sachs speaks the truth and offers his wisdom and advice for humanity. "The real struggle of the world is to live together and overcome our common crises of environment and inequality."

Original video:-Kimmee Lee (KimmeeLee2) October 22, 2022

We could have a world where our energy and resources go toward increasing human thriving and learning to collaborate with this fragile biosphere we evolved in.

Where all our scientific innovation is directed toward making this planet a better place to live instead of channeling it into getting rich and finding new ways to explode human bodies.

Where our old models of competition and exploitation give way to systems of collaboration and care.

Where poverty, toil and misery gradually move from accepted norms of human existence to dimly remembered historical record.

Instead we are getting a world where we are being hammered harder and harder with propaganda encouraging us to accept global conflict as an unavoidable reality, where politicians who voice even the mildest support for diplomacy are shouted down and demonized until they bow to the gods of war, where nuclear brinkmanship is framed as safety and de-escalation is branded as reckless endangerment.

We do not have to submit to this.

We do not have to keep sleepwalking into dystopia and armageddon to the beat of manipulative sociopaths.

There are a whole lot more of us than there are of them, and we have got a whole lot more at stake here than they do.

We can have a healthy world.

We have just got to want it badly enough.

They work so hard to manufacture our consent because, ultimately, they absolutely do require it!!

"This Ms Caitlin Johnstone article, its pictures, and its links are here:"

Thanks for reading!!

Everyone has my unconditional permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I have written) in any way they like free of charge.

My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my "sweet merchandise", buying my new book "Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone", or my previous book "Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers". The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for "my website", which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I am trying to do with this platform, "click here".