Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

Except from The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy:


Could it be that the Military Industrial Complex, that powerful combination of America’s armed forces, legislators, political factions, defence contractors and money men, is effectively the Shadow Government?

The farewell speech of Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th President of the US and the only Army General ever to be elected President, is perhaps telling in this regard. In his speech, which was delivered in a television broadcast on January 17, 1961, Eisenhower warned America against the ever-increasing political influence of the Military Industrial Complex. President Eisenhower also pointed out that the nation annually spent on “military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations” – a fact which possibly holds true to this day, depending on definitions of where military security starts and ends.

Eisenhower’s speech could be construed as suggesting his Presidential powers were diluted because of the influence of the Military Industrial Complex.

Unwarranted Influence: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Military-Industrial Complex



The Military Industrial Complex: Eisenhower's Warning Three Decades Later

Military–industrial complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar...

I am a refugee from the Military Industrial complex, having spent fifteen years helping to build ever more precise means of identifying, tracking and eliminating threats to our national security. We never talked about killing, as that would be immoral. But one weapon system I worked on was known as the "finger of god" by the Taliban for its ability to find one man in a crowd and ... well you know the rest. Look forward to your thoughts. dhtreichler

Regarding "the rest"... Does this weapon have the ability to kill one man in crowd without causing collateral damage? And by talking about such things are you not in danger of pissing certain people off?

Dhtreichler wrote: ".........'finger of god'



''Finger of god'' is it another word for drone? If that is the case, I can assure you that drones kill women, children and animals. They often miss their target or/and at times do not even have a target apart from 'whatever moves in a particular area'.

Hadiyo wrote: "'Finger of god'' is it another word for drone? If that is the case, I can assure you that drones kill women, children and animals. They often miss their target or/and at times do not even have a target apart from 'whatever moves in a particular area'...."

Exactly!

This particular weapon is not a drone but rather s very precise weapon whose accuracy is dependent on the precision of the shooter.

Dhtreichler wrote: "I am a refugee from the Military Industrial complex, having spent fifteen years helping to build ever more precise means of identifying, tracking and eliminating threats to our national security. We never talked about killing, as that would be immoral. But one weapon system I worked on was known as the "finger of god" by the Taliban for its ability to find one man in a crowd and ... well you know the rest. Look forward to your thoughts. dhtreichler ..."

Did you guys ever discuss how to define those carefully chosen military PR terms like "threats to our national security" or "the War on Terror"?

Dhtreichler wrote: "This particular weapon is not a drone but rather s very precise weapon whose accuracy is dependent on the precision of the shooter."

Why do not you work on developing a balanced foreign policy, fair-trading and more sustainable development (and investment) in the Third World instead of building more killing machines? I think, this's more effective way of 'eliminating' threats to 'your' national security.

Dhtreichler wrote: "I am a refugee from the Military Industrial complex, having spent fifteen years helping to build ever more precise means of identifying, tracking and eliminating threats to our national security. W..."

I assume there was no confidentiality clause in your employment contract? Or perhaps there was, but you are ignoring it? Gutsy.

I'd like to respond to the open questions. First a threat to our national security could be any armed individual who intends, or in fact, does kill an American citizen anywhere in the world. We have to define it that broadly because a lone wolf could be part of a movement but never in direct touch with the organizing force. They pose a 'threat'. So, yes, we often considered the nature of what we were providing to our troops. The rationale was we never wanted American soldiers in a fair fight, because that increased the chances that someone's son or daughter, brother or sister, or mother or father would not return home.
Would I prefer that American companies built businesses in each of the countries of interest to give people hope of a better life, one they would defend? Absolutely. But would you put your own money into a company to employ people in Syria, or Sudan or even the Philippines with the level of unrest and violence? Would you go live there to operate the company since the local educational levels are so deficient that few could manage a complex organization. One of the great lessons of recent history is that the US is not good at nation building.
As for the third question, I held the appropriate security clearances and have not, nor would I, divulge anything that was classified or proprietary to my former employer. The 'finger of god' term was what the Taliban fighters called the weapon I discussed in interviews with American soldiers. There is nothing classified or restricted about that term.
Now a question for you all: Given that our national leaders can't balance a budget, can't adequately provide for employment opportunities, education, health care, or environmental stewardship, how do we create a safe environment for Americans to travel or live anywhere in the world? We were able to create such an environment for almost 70 years. But it is now breaking down. Old solutions aren't working. What can replace it?

Perhaps a better question would be how do we create a safe environment for ANY & EVERYONE to travel or live anywhere in the world?

I suspect the answer lies with you 'n me and everyone else who make up the 99% because it's painfully clear we can't rely on the politicians... Not the current crop of politicians at least.

Dhtreichler wrote: "One of the great lessons of recent history is that the US is not good at nation building...."

You don't say. :)

I'd also add that the question you pose at end of your post is in my opinion way too Americancentric and needs rephrasing if you are to be serious about global peace and the ascension of the entire planet (which is the supposed ambition of all Western military forces, hence their terms like peacekeeping or preventing threats to peace...). That's not an anti-American statement - same would be asked if a Brit, German or Chinese person asked it purely from their nation's perspective. If you think about it, what can further one nation's "national security", can drastically interfere with another nation's wellbeing...And with no nation have we seen that more relevant than with the United States in the post-WW2 era where their leader's "American empire" approach has lead to untold misery for many people all over the world. Furthermore, the American people have suffered by much of their nation's budget going toward neverending military expenditures instead of being invested in social protections for the people...

Oh, and I still say "national security" is a very clever, purposefully ambiguous term carefully selected by military-associated PR firms to allow for maximum military aggression and therefore maximum profit generation (in one of the most lucrative fields on earth: the war business). Likewise with the totally glib, oxymoronic term "the war on terror" (which I always put in quotes as it's an insult to the soldiers who died in actual wars in earlier eras to ever refer to these current illegal invasions as real wars).

James: it seems we are in violent agreement. I made a very good living developing intelligence systems so we would know what the 'bad guys' were doing. Then I was transferred into the weapons arena, a place I never considered wanting to be. And like most people I found rationalizations for what we were doing. Eisenhower warned us what would happen when we unleashed the dogs of war for a profit. We live in that very dangerous place today because men could make a very good living delivering death from a distance. The problem is our adversaries have changed the equation and now it is a very up close and personal encounter. Whether a knife attack in an Israeli market or London Bridge. Driving a truck into a crowd is now the weapon of choice because our adversaries have cried uncle in the war to have the most sophisticated weapons. But there is still the prospect of nuclear weapons weather dirty bomb or full on fusion being delivered by goat cart into the midst of Americans somewhere in the world. And you are right, I am looking at this as an American. Even though I travel the world extensively and have friends and non-friends in many places, I have spent fifteen years trying to solve a particular problem that was intended to protect American's first. I am no longer in that arena and truly wish to find solutions to the world problem of how do the many governments protect every citizen of the world to live anywhere an enjoy safety wherever they may be?

Dhtreichler wrote: "The problem is our adversaries have changed the equation and now it is a very up close and personal encounter. ..."

Our adversaries....
Hmmmm...
Who is "our" and who are these "adversaries"?
That question seems simple now and obvious, just as it seemed simple and obvious during the Vietnam War and the Cold War, to name just a few situations in recent times...But as history shows, it's never that simple and obvious and many of those post-WW2 conflicts have been shown more and more to be engineered/exaggerated/enhanced for the most part by the powers that be in the West...Powers that profited greatly.

If we allow the "our" or "us" you refer to to be defined from the military industrial complex's perspective, which is of course the narrative perpetuated in the mainstream media, then we in the West will always fail to look within at ourselves for the biggest enemies of the people...We will always instead keep looking at foreign bogeymen and falling for these narratives which are motivated by profit and greed and power.

So while Islamic terrorism is most certainly real, and while there can as you say be "a knife attack in an Israeli market or London Bridge", we MUST (if we are honest and humanists and wish to uphold proper journalistic standards) acknowledge there can be, and perhaps more importantly are, entire Afghan villages wiped out by OUR drones, hospitals and schools blitzed by OUR "collateral damage" (another cute military PR term) in Pakistan, and subtle but devastating divide and conquer strategies carried out in stealth by the likes of the CIA or MI6 against vulnerable, mineral-rich Third World nations (is there a Third World nation on Earth for example that the CIA hasn't conducted an illegal assassination?).

So there are simply human beings on this planet and I couldn't give a flying which nationality anybody is. Nationalities are totally irrelevant.

So who is "us" and who are actually the "bad guys" in reality? Are those who say they are protecting us, really (just) doing that? Or is there a greater agenda going on here?

Consider some underreported historical incidents:

The U.S. Military’s official proposal to kill American civilians, bomb U.S. cities and fly planes into buildings in staged terrorist attacks (Operation Northwoods declassified) https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Operation Gladio - the CIA's and NATO's terrorist-sponsoring program in Europe https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

The false flag that began the Vietnam War https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

I spent a time as a school district administrator before moving off to be a defense contractor. I know, a mind blowing shift. But in my doctoral studies I had a professor who took it upon herself to ensure that I 'decentered'. She told me that as a male school administrator I could never know what it was to be a female teacher in a public school. She did not base this on conversations with me. It was an assumption based on my position. I am feeling the same need on your part to 'decenter' your audience. Move it away from what they know and perceive to a different perception, one which you hold, not based on personal knowledge, but rather looking at white spaces, what isn't being said versus what is.
You seem to be quick to deplore what is going on in the Middle East, but I would ask have you ever been there? Have you talked with those who live there? Have you witnessed the uprooting of families by their own government in countries like Syria? Have you reflected upon the allegations of historians, as history is the tales left behind by the victors. Stories of Tammerlane leaving piles of skulls in the public square as he left to conquerer another country as warning that those still living should not contest his rule.
What you are reflecting on is only the media revolution which has enabled each of us to know much more of what is going on, and has gone on for centuries, throughout the world. I was in a meeting today where someone mentioned that as a child he watched George Jetson fold up his hovercraft and put it into his suitcase. He then read of a Norse mythology of a god who transformed the second largest sailing ship in the world into a cloth he stored in his suitcase. This tale was from 1200 AD. There is nothing new in the world. But we write a lot of words to impress others that there is. We write a lot of words trying to convince others that we have something of value to say, because there are nearly seven billion of us all seeking the world's attention all at the same time using the same media channels. It's no wonder that we get lost in the blizzard of electrons all seeking to register upon the collective conscious.
So I go back to my last question: How do you and I and anyone else who cares, make the world a safer place for you and me and anyone else who cares?

Dhtreichler wrote: "So I go back to my last question: How do you and I and anyone else who cares, make the world a safer place for you and me and anyone else who cares?..."

Nope.
I'm not gonna play your game by your rules and let you (re)set the parameters of the debate/subject and narrow it down to one specific question (and thereby ignore all the tough questions) when original subject is: Warnings about the Military Industrial Complex.
Your question is limiting and perhaps carefully selected (either consciously or subconsciously) as what follows from safety questions is always those other types of glib miltary/CIA-style discussions about meaningless, fear-based terms like "national security". Discussions which never get to the root causes of issues because the parameters are too narrow.

However, I congratulate you on at least rephrasing your cute, little question to make the world safer for all instead of Americans only...If only more in the military could do the same, the world would probably be one step closer to being safe for all human beings ;)

James, when I was an assistant superintendent of schools, my boss, who was the superintendent asked me why I wasn't more involved and concerned about the larger social issues of the day. My answer then was I can only contribute to the things where my direct involvement makes a difference. I cannot erase poverty even if I give all my worldly possessions away. I cannot eliminate social injustice, even though I live a moral life and accept all I encounter, learning from them and contributing what I've learned in life. But then I could help each student in my school district become a critical thinker, to learn how to learn, to ask the questions that others don't think of. That I could do. So as to your question about the Military Industrial Complex. The warnings go back to biblical times. Those who made armor and swords and shields made money from the constant wars of the politicians. Rome was never at peace, even though the greatest civilization of its eras. The Military Industrial complex is nothing new, what our challenge remains is how to change the narrative so that society expects and demands peace, harmony and justice rather than relying on the might of a few to 'protect' the rest.

Cool. We agree there.

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry...


'Why drone pilots quitting in huge numbers'?

is it that they actually know that they are not killing only 'the bad guys' and that they see everything that is happening before the drone strike and their target are unaware that they're being watched? is it the feeling ot guilty that it's actually cowardly attack.