US government dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, Japan 75 years ago today

It was completely unjustified. Here’s what I wrote 8 years ago:

August 6 was the anniversary of the first atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. Tomorrow is the anniversary of the second bomb which was dropped on Nagasaki. Many great scholars have documented how this was unnecessary from a military standpoint despite the propaganda we’re taught in government schools. The invasion of Japan would not have cost “millions” of American lives. The Japanese would have surrendered had Harry Truman dropped his call for “unconditional” surrender which the Japanese took to mean the Americans would arrest and execute their emperor. Of course the president could have alleviated these fears & accepted their surrender. Instead he murdered at least 150,000 civilians, then let them keep their emperor anyway. Here are some quotes from contemporaries of Truman for those who still buy the lies:

“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” -Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz

“It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” -General Dwight Eisenhower

“On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo – they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.” – Allen Dulles, chief of OSS operations in Switzerland

Do we even have a Constitution anymore?

“The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and it covers with its shield of protection all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances.  No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of men that any of its great provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of Government.” – Supreme Court Justice David Davis writing in the majority opinion of Ex parte Milligan 1866

Image result for none of this counts if people get sick right

Why can’t someone primary Lindsey Graham into retirement?

He could go be a Fox Analyst or maybe write for the Washington Post. He could join some neocon think tank. Maybe he could team up with Cindy McCain and dedicate his life to curating a John McCain Museum of Death and Destruction. It would be easier for Libertarians and other non-interventionists to ignore him if he wasn’t a sitting US Senator.

But unfortunately his tweets get almost as much attention as Trump’s:

It gets tiring to try to confront this line of “reasoning” based on ignorance, but here’s a real quick rebuttal:

WWII: Germany never intended to or had the capability to attack the United States. Japan attacked the United States as a response to Roosevelt’s oil embargo and refusal to negotiate. FDR intended for Pearl Harbor to happen so he could back his way into the European War. (Not to mention, why is Hawaii part of the United States?)

9/11: Bill Clinton had starved hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq while his UN ambassador bragged about it on national television.

Plus there were US Troops in Saudi Arabia and a one-sided approach to the Israel-Palestine issue.

So “Isolationism” has never been tried since WWI on any foreign policy issue and Lindsay Graham should just shut up and retire already.

1/3 of Americans are “Conspiracy Theorists”

That’s roughly how many think Jeffrey Epstein was murdered according to some polls. Using the term “conspiracy theory” as a way of dismissing an idea that powerful people may have intentionally done something nefarious and then lied about it has always amused me. Obviously there are conspiracies. Two or more people get together and decide or plan on doing something bad then that’s a conspiracy. So it’s just plain stupid to pretend this never happens.

And of course, we often find out that what was deemed as a crazy conspiracy theory turned out to be true. How many times did the US State conspire to lead the country into war? Yet at the time, very few people questioned the assertions that lead to aggressive military actions that killed thousands.

Here are a few examples for the historically ignorant:

  1. USS Maine explosion blamed on the Spanish in 1898. Led to the Spanish-American War.
  2. The Lusitania that was sunk by Germans in 1915 was carrying munitions to the British. Helped lead to America’s entry into WWI.
  3. Pearl Harbor attack in 1941 was intentionally provoked and allowed to happen. Led to America’s entry into WWII.
  4. Gulf of Tonkin incident was a blatant lie. Led to the US escalation of the Vietnam War.
  5. Lies that Saddam’s troops were ripping babies off incubators and bayonetting them. Helped lead to US intervention in the First Gulf War.
  6. Lies that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he planned to give to Islamic terrorists. Led to US attack on Iraq.

Weren’t these all conspiracies? Powerful men and women “conspiring” to mislead the US public so that they would support overseas military interventions?

The Meaning of World War I

World War I ended one hundred years ago today so of course we’re treated to a bunch of nonsense about what lessons we should have learned from this horrible tragedy.  Ill-informed state propagandists are always trying to retrofit their current delusions about society into past historical events.  Two things are certain for these people one hundred years later: Nationalism caused World War I and is bad.  Globalism (or “Internationalism” or whatever word they think sounds more appealing at any given moment) is good and it has kept the peace since World War II.

On its face, this just isn’t true.  First of all there have been hundreds of wars since World War II, including some in Europe.  Secondly, the major combatants in World War I were huge multi-ethnic Empires.  Twenty-first century European nationalists would have no desire to return to a system where German Austrians ruled over Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Poles, etc.  In fact quite the opposite.  The Germans (albeit not of the Austrian variety) tend to play an outsized dominant role in the current European Union applauded by today’s globalists and despised by today’s nationalists.  Similarly, many of today’s nationalists want to break up the existing European states into smaller semi-homogenous political units.  How would a UK without Scotland, a Spain without Catalonia, or an Italy without Venice lead to any sort of continental-wide conflict?  The only way I can see is if other States intervened to stop a region from seceding from their current government.  So it’s not nationalism that would lead to a large scale war, it’s the potential violent response by the globalists themselves to any possible breakup of the current globalist structures

To the extent nationalism can be blamed for World War I, I can only think of one semi-legitimate argument to be made.  The idea that Serbian nationalism was the spark that started it all.  Serbian nationalists wanted to unite all the ethnic Serbians under one government and many were still ruled by the Austrians so one of them killed the Hapsburg heir and his wife.  Of course whether you want to blame the Serbian Nationalists or the Austrian response for the initial outbreak of war, is really beside the point.

Ask yourself this, what did the Archduke’s murder have to do with the United States, Canada, France, England, etc.  Would an American nationalist in 1914 have advocated intervening to save Serbia?  If Donald Trump or Pat Buchanan were alive back then would they want to take up arms to fight the Germans to protect France or Serbia or Belgium or whoever?  What would a globalist such as John McCain or Hillary Clinton have wanted to do?  Did Woodrow Wilson argue the war was necessary on nationalist or globalist terms?  Was his desired League of Nations nationalist or globalist in nature?

The real meaning people should have learned from The World Wars, particularly the first one, is that military or “defensive” alliances lead to war rather than peace.  Austria wanted to punish or maybe even conquer the small country of Serbia.  That sucks for Serbia, but why did it snowball into a huge World War?  The Germans were allies with the Austrians and backed them up diplomatically.  The Russians were allies with the Serbs on religions/ethnic grounds and felt compelled to intervene on their behalf.  Whether the Russian-German war could have been avoided given the circumstances in 1914 is a tough question.  There were ethnic considerations-mainly whether Germans or Russians would be the dominant, ruling force over the diverse peoples of Eastern and Central Europe.

But why did France need to get involved?  The German declaration of War on France was in response to France’s mobilization, but why did France need to mobilize in the first place over Serbia?  Did French nationalists feel some special attachment to Serbs?  Or was it because the government of the French Empire had made a military alliance with Russia?  And what about the British Empire?  Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way around.  They had pledged to defend Belgium two generations earlier and also had a secret alliance with France.  Because Britain was a Global Empire and not simply a Nation, their entry automatically pulled in people from Canada, India, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and eventually their former colonies in the United States.

The lesson from World War I is to follow George Washington’s wise advice and stay out of “entangling alliances.”  This is advice no globalist could ever follow, but most present day nationalists would likely find quite appealing.

A very bad man died recently

I speak of course of John McCain.  He was nicknamed by the establishment as a maverick because he agreed with the worst aspects of both the Democrats and Republicans.  That this tended to represent the establishment view on everything is what makes the nickname so absurd.  Simply being a partisan hack would be bad enough, but breaking with your party on the rare occasion when they’re actually right about something is a new level of evil and/or stupidity.

The last time McCain opposed a US military intervention was 1982 when he correctly criticized Reagan’s troop buildup in Lebanon.  Since then he has continued to criticize every US intervention, but his issue has always been that the Empire didn’t send enough troops, spend enough money, bomb enough buildings, kill enough people.  Never once, did this “maverick” take a step back and question why a local conflict in some far away, little understood corner of the world was any of his or the US State’s business.

McCain died despised by the majority of his own party’s base.  That makes me think there may some small shred of hope for the GOP in the coming years.  But despite all this, the average “conservative” in the US still has to spout the usual platitudes about him being a war hero.  This is complete rubbish.

Ask yourself,

What was heroic about volunteering for a military that had been engaged in the indiscriminate killing of civilians since at least 1942 (McCain entered the Naval Academy in 1958)?

What was heroic about bombing North Vietnam, with the full knowledge that helpless women and children were dying as a result, when they posed no threat to the United States?

What was heroic about being shot down?

What was heroic about being captured?

Ask yourself this.  If a foreign military was bombing your town, regardless of whether there was a Military base nearby or not, and one of their pilots crashed into your backyard, how would you react?

I know many otherwise honorable people served in Vietnam and other US Wars.  I know many were drafted and had very little choice in the matter.  But participation in an unjust war is not in itself heroic.  Being captured or tortured in the process doesn’t automatically make you a hero either.

And John McCain was not otherwise honorable.  He supported every unjust war that occurred during his lifetime and it wasn’t just lip service like some suburban soccer mom sporting a Support the Troops bumper sticker.  He was in a position to influence the US State’s War Machine and he used that influence for evil.

Let’s hope his death is the end of a very bad, violent, destructive era.

Cold War Debates

I listened to the Tom Woods Show interview with Kevin Gutzman today.  It was an interesting interview.  I have read a few books by Professor Gutzman which were excellent, and he’s clearly a much smarter person than I am.

But I need to take issue with some debate they had over the Cold War and Vietnam.  Gutzman is a conservative and defends both.  His argument seemed to boil down to a few points:

  1. If the US hadn’t “fought” the Cold War the Soviet Union would probably still be around today.
  2. South Vietnam would still be an independent country if it wasn’t for Watergate weakening Nixon and emboldening anti-war Democrats who abandoned them.
  3. South Korea and West Germany would have fallen to the Soviets if the US had abandoned them like they did Vietnam.

Although it’s impossible to know how history would have played out if American politicians had acted differently, I don’t necessarily think Gutzman is wrong about most of this.  But I still have a major issue with this line of thinking.

On point one, it seems entirely plausible that Reagan’s military buildup and SDI initiative hastened the collapse of the Soviet Empire.  But it’s not an argument to say that the Cold War was worth it because Russia now has a different economic and governmental system.  If Vladimir Putting called himself General Secretary instead of President would that mean I’m in danger all of a sudden?  Like many conservatives that came of age in that era he just takes it for granted that the USSR was automatically an existential threat to Americans and our way of life without having to actually justify it.

On point two, it’s basically a big fat who cares.  I’m sure the people of South Vietnam would have been better off if they hadn’t lived under communism all these years.  But they did, and nothing changed in America as a result.  However, the war itself led to great upheaval and an undermining of many of the values conservatives are supposed to care about.  So even if “we” had won, why would that matter to people who lived in the USA in 1964 who had never heard of Vietnam until their government invaded it?  Conservatives have no problem with people living under police states or dictatorships until the governments call themselves communists or Islamic.  Then all of a sudden it’s a moral issue or a threat to the world or something.

On point three, I’d have to argue that we, as Americans, would have been better off if our government hadn’t intervened to keep these half-nations “free.”  If South Korea had fallen to the damn commies, they wouldn’t be as prosperous as they are today.  But look what happened in Vietnam.  Maybe a united Communist Korea would have evolved more like Vietnam and the North wouldn’t be the horrible police state murder factory it is today.  And at any rate, from an American point of view, we wouldn’t continue to have 30,000 soldiers there acting as a human sacrifice to trigger a war should North Korea ever decide to invade South Korea.

As for West Germany, it’s basically the same argument as Korea.  But I would also say I have my doubts that a United Germany could have been held in check as a Soviet Satellite for forty years.  So maybe not dividing it up after WWII would have hastened the end of the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe had the Soviets insisted on occupying the whole thing.  And if they didn’t try to occupy the whole thing, then the US didn’t need to defend them anyway  We’ll never know what would have nappened.  We do know, however, that the US wouldn’t have an incredibly expensive and permanent military beaurocracy in Europe that has far outlived its intended purpose if we hadn’t created it to defend West Germany in the first place.

And as a final argument against any of this meddling, I’d like to point out the following:

  1. The USA didn’t have to enter WWI.  There was absolutely no threat to North America as a result of the hostilities taking place in Europe in 1917
  2. Because the USA entered WWI, the allies didn’t have to reach a peace agreement with Germany, and Russia continued the unpopular war.  This allowed the communists, with the help of Germany, to take power and create the Soviet Union in the first place.
  3. It also allowed France and Britain to win a decisive victory and impose a harsh peace on defeated Germany.  This lead to economic chaos in Germany and a feeling of injustice that allowed the Nazis to take power.
  4. So US intervention in WWI lead directly to the circumstances that created WWII.
  5. The USA insisted on unconditional surrender in WWII so that the German government could not make peace without signing their own death warrants.
  6. The Soviet Union took over Eastern Europe and suddenly became a “threat” to the USA because they won an unconditional surrender from Germany in WWII (with the help of the USA).
  7. I’ll skip over all the bad things that happened during the cold war because I discussed some of them earlier in this post, but obviously it cost a lot of lives and money.
  8. To fight the evil commies the USA supported Arab terrorists in Afghanistan who were fighting the Soviet occupation in the 1980s.
  9. Those same Arabs then turned on the USA over our government’s Middle East policy, itself a relic of the Cold War power struggle for resources.  They bombed the World Trade Enter in New York City.
  10. The Bush regime then launched the never ending Terror War that is still going on today.

No matter what motivations or reasoning anyone uses for an aggressive or militaristic foreign policy, it always leads to unintended consequences that then lead to calls for further interventions to counteract those consequences.  It never ends.  Don’t go to war (or fund a war) unless you are under a direct physical threat to your homeland.  It’s never worth it.  It never makes things better.

Happy Independence Day!

Independence Day is one of the holidays I rather like.  Many that have no religious roots are simply celebrations of government or a government figure.  Memorial Day and Veterans’ Day have devolved into orgies of military worship.  Labor Day was basically a holiday to celebrate unions and now it’s just an excuse to not perform any labor for a day. Presidents’ Day is where we’re taught how great presidents are especially the ones that started wars or passed the most laws.

However, Independence Day is not, strictly speaking, a celebration of the US Government. The Washington regime we currently suffer under was not formed on July 4, 1776. That would be 1788 when the Constitution was ratified.  Rather, This holiday marks the day that thirteen separate states declared their independence from the British Empire.  It’s a celebration of decentralization, and that is almost always something worth celebrating.

Many of the Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence went onto serve in the eventual US government that was officially created twelve years later.  So in that sense it’s a founding document of that same government.  But most, if not all of these men would certainly be disgusted with the monstrosity that Washington, DC morphed into.

I find it interesting that the media and many politicians have taken to calling this day simply “The Fourth of July.”  I believe this is done with a purpose in mind.  They want this holiday to be thought of as the birth of the current United State, rather than the actual history which is several states seceding from a larger central government mainly to lower their tax burden.

I prefer to celebrate the tax rebellion.  Sometimes I think we need another one.

We need another Warren Harding

I love this quite from 1920

“America’s present need is not heroics, but healing; not nostrums, but normalcy; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation, but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not experiment, but equipoise; not submergence in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality”.

Can the peace candidate win?

I’ve made the case that Trump is staking out the position of peace candidate.  But can that strategy win?  After all, I compared him to Reagan who certainly wasn’t viewed as the peace candidate in 1980 when he won his first term.  I was an enthusiastic supporter of the non-interventionist Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, and he didn’t stand a chance.

So can Peace win?  I figured why not look over the last few elections to see if being the bigger warmonger was a liability or an asset:

2012: Obama had been quite reckless in foreign affairs during his first term.  He escalated the Afghanistan quagmire and launched a foolish campaign against Libya based on lies. However, he was able to make the case that he ended the Iraq War (despite the fact that it never really ended and he had tried to extend it anyway).  When you factor in that Mitt Romney’s campaign was centered around the preemptive surrender of foreign policy to Benjamin Netanyahu, it’s clear Obama was the relative Peace Candidate. Conclusion: Peace Wins

2008: McCain is the most crazed warmonger to ever win a major party nomination in the postwar era, and that’s really saying something.  Obama managed to win the Democratic nomination by being the one candidate who could actually claim to have been against the Iraq War. Conclusion: Peace Wins

2004: Bush had just launched two expensive wars that showed no signs of ending.  Kerry was an idiot who would’t take a firm position on anything, but he was still the relative Peace Candidate. Conclusion: War Wins

2000: War and Peace weren’t really the defining issues in this campaign, but Bush lied and said he wanted to return to a “humble” foreign policy.  Gore represented a continuation of the Clinton regime that had been in a state of low-level perpetual war for most of the previous eight years.  So even though this was basically a tie, Conclusion: Peace Wins

1996: Americans weren’t focused on foreign policy in 1996.  Clinton was probably still seen as the peace candidate compared to Bob Dole.  Clinton’s interventionism and been under the radar in his first term compared to his second, and Dole was still seen as an old school Cold Warrior.  Hard to say it was the decisive factor, but the perception that Clinton was a 60’s era peacenik didn’t hurt him at all.  Conclusion: Peace Wins

1992: Bush had just wrapped up the Gulf War when the ’92 campaign got underway.  The war was very popular, but Americans were more concerned with NAFTA and other domestic issues.  The ex-hippy, draft dodger Clinton was able to beat the war hero Bush despite the (false) victory against Saddam Hussein.  Conclusion: Peace Wins

You could make the argument that the Bush/Reagan/Nixon victories in 72, 80, 84, 88 were all somewhat anti-peace, but that truly was a different era.  Basically from 1920 until the Cold War ended, the Republicans were seen as “realists” on the international stage while the Democrats were the ones prone to foreign adventurism.  So while McGovern was clearly the peace candidate in 1972, Nixon was reaping the benefit of having ended the Democrats’ unpopular Vietnam War.

As you can see it gets a little murky if you go back into the Cold War era, but Carter was definitely the peace candidate in 1976.  Nixon, believe it or not, was the peace candidate in 1968 after Hubert Humphrey stole the Democrat primary.  Johnson was incorrectly viewed as the peace candidate in 1964.  Kennedy was actually a bit of a warmonger in 1960. Eisenhower was the peace candidate in 1952 and was reelected on that reputation in 1956.

There’s normally a bi-partisan consensus on perpetual war, but if you look at what was the perception in presidential elections since 1952, I would say Peace has the edge.  The warmongers usually only win when foreign policy is relegated to the sidelines in favor of some new welfare entitlement or an economic crisis.  When given a clear choice between war and peace, peace usually wins.

I think  the Donald is onto something.  At least he’s making this election much more interesting than 2012.