Showing posts sorted by date for query TYRANT TIME. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query TYRANT TIME. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, January 07, 2025

Trump promises to replace national archivist after the agency's role in documents case against him
PETTY TYRANT

Will Weissert
Mon, January 6, 2025 



WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump is promising to replace the head of the National Archives, thrusting the agency back into the political spotlight after his mishandling of sensitive documents led to a federal indictment.

“We will have a new archivist," Trump told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Monday.

The agency piqued Trump's ire after it alerted the Department of Justice about potential problems with Trump’s handling of classified documents in early 2022. That set in motion an investigation that led to a dramatic FBI search of Trump's home at Mar-a-Lago, which culminated in him becoming the first former president charged with federal crimes.

The current archivist, Colleen Shogan, the first woman in the role, wasn't in the post at that time. David Ferriero, who had been appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009, announced in January 2022 that he'd be retiring effective that April.

Shogan was nominated by President Joe Biden in August 2022, just days before the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida. But she was not confirmed until May of the following year, after a monthslong partisan battle over the agency’s role in the documents investigation.

The national archivist can be removed from office by the president, who can choose a successor who is then confirmed by the Senate, so Trump's promise to do so is not unusual.

Still, Trump has vowed to smash what he calls the “ deep state,” a nebulous term referring generally to the federal government, including civil servants and bureaucrats he argues are hostile to his ideological views and those of Republicans more broadly.

Presidents are legally required to provide most of their records to the National Archives once they leave office. When the National Archives realized that some documents were missing from its collection after Trump left office, they made repeated demands for him to return them, according to the federal indictment.

Trump eventually turned over some of the documents but hid others, the indictment charged. He was indicted by special counsel Jack Smith on charges including willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice and false statements and representations.

He pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing. Prosecutors moved to abandon the case after his Election Day victory in November. That was consistent with long-standing Justice Department policy that says sitting presidents cannot face criminal prosecution.

Will Weissert, The Associated Press


Trump says he’ll replace National Archives leader

Tara Suter
THE HILL
Mon, January 6, 2025


President-elect Trump said on Monday that he’ll replace the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) leader.

“We will [have a] new archivist,” Trump told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on his show.

According to federal law on the NARA website, Trump has the power to fire the archivist but must “communicate the reasons for any such removal to each House of the Congress.”

One of the prominent legal cases the president-elect has had to deal with in the past two years, the Mar-a-Lago documents case, centered around his retention of sensitive documents from his first presidency, in the face of work by NARA and the FBI to get them back.

Special counsel Jack Smith formally withdrew from the documents case last week, referring the continuing prosecution of the president-elect’s two co-defendants to Southern District of Florida federal prosecutors. Smith also formally dropped charges against Trump in both of his federal cases two months ago, dismissing them without prejudice and citing Justice Department policy barring the prosecution of a sitting president.

“We also had a very brilliant and very fair judge on the case,” Trump told Hewitt on Monday, referring to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who ruled to toss the documents case in July.

“And as you know, we won that case … we won it convincingly,” the president-elect added.

The current Archivist of the United States Colleen Shogan has been in the role since May 2023. While still a nominee, she faced confrontation from Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) about past posts on the social platform X, including those in which she went after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and backed mask mandates for young children.

“Dr. Shogan has had a strong working relationship with President Trump and his team. We look forward to continuing that relationship with the new administration,” National Archives Public and Media Communications said in an emailed statement to The Hill Sunday.

Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. 




Monday, January 06, 2025

Syrian caretaker government to hike public sector salaries by 400% next month

Riham Alkousaa
Updated Sun, January 5, 2025 

FILE PHOTO: Workers move money to Syrian central bank in Damascus


By Riham Alkousaa

DAMASCUS (Reuters) -Syria's finance minister said on Sunday the government would hike salaries for many public sector employees by 400% next month after completing an administrative restructuring of ministries to boost efficiency and accountability.

The increase, estimated to cost 1.65 trillion Syrian pounds, or about $127 million at current rates, will be financed by existing state resources plus a combination of regional aid, new investments, and efforts to unfreeze Syrian assets held abroad.

"(This is) the first step towards an emergency solution to the economic reality in the country," Mohammed Abazeed, the finance minister in Syria's caretaker government, told Reuters, adding that this month's wages for public sector staff would be paid out this week.

These measures are part of a broader strategy by Syria's new caretaker government to stabilize the country's economy following 13 years of conflict and sanctions.

Salaries of Syria's public sector employees under toppled President Bashar al-Assad's regime were around $25 a month, putting them below the poverty line, along with the majority of the country's population, Abazeed said.

The hike would follow a comprehensive evaluation of up to 1.3 million registered public sector employees to remove fictitious employees from the payroll and would affect those with sufficient expertise, academic qualifications, and the necessary skills for reconstruction.

Syria's state treasury is facing liquidity challenges emerging from a war. The majority of money available in the central bank is Syrian currency, which has lost much of its value. However, the new government was promised assistance from regional and Arab countries, the minister said.

"The launch of investments in the country in the near future will also benefit the state treasury and allow us to finance this salary increase," he said, adding the central bank currently has sufficient funds to finance the next few months.

The government expects to retrieve up to $400 million in frozen Syrian assets abroad, which could co-finance the initial government expenses.

Syria's caretaker government is also discussing exempting taxpayers, as much as possible, from penalties and interest and working on overhauling the tax system within the next three months to achieve tax justice for all taxpayers, with a first draft expected within four months.

"By the end of this year, we expect having a well-designed tax system that takes the interests of all taxpayers into account," he added.

(Reporting by Riham AlkousaaEditing by Mark Potter and Sharon Singleton)


‘The tyrant is gone and the nightmare is done’: Syrian exiles hope for a brighter future

Erum Salam
Sun, January 5, 2025 at 4:00 AM MST·5 min read
THE GUARDIAN 

Torn posters show the late Syrian president Hafez al-Assad and his son, the recently ousted Bashar al-Assad, in Damascus, Syria, on 14 December 2024.Photograph: Hussein Malla/AP

Shortly after the Syrian civil war began in 2011, Jihad Abdo, a well-known actor in the Arab world, left his home in Damascus.

After being quoted criticizing government corruption in a Los Angeles Times article, he had been targeted by a string of threatening phone messages from callers claiming to be senior officers in the Syrian army. Leaving Syria would also mean leaving his younger brother and ageing parents. But amid the mounting intimidation, Abdo felt he had no choice.

“The air had become suffocating in Damascus with the recurring threats,” Abdo, 62, said. “The country I loved turned into a prison where stating the truth was treason and hope was kind of like a crime.”

Related: Control, censorship and ‘penalties’: inside the Assad regime’s propaganda arm

His wife, Fadia Afashe, had been pleading with her husband to join her in safety in the US, where she was on a Fulbright scholarship. Abdo believed his celebrity status might lend him some protection – only to realize that even more prominent figures were being caught up in Bashar al-Assad’s crackdown on dissent.

Eventually, he fled to join Afashe in Los Angeles, describing the decision to leave as one of the hardest he had ever had to make.

In California, the actor, whose credits include 40 Syrian films and more than 1,000 episodes of television, was forced to start over again, working as a pizza delivery driver and changing his name to more palatable “Jay”.

“I lost almost everything – parents, career, friends, memory and even my cat. I was torn apart between hope and failure, between a bright future and dark destiny,” he said.

Like many Syrians, Abdo and Afashe never thought they would see the end of the Assad regime. But after a lightning campaign earlier this month, rebel forces overthrew the Syrian leader, who, after 13 years of torturing, imprisoning and displacing millions of his own people, fled to Russia.

“[I’m] free in a way I never dared to dream of,” said Abdo. “Not in those days when the walls of my homeland whispered fear and betrayal I could believe the tyrant is gone and the nightmare is done.”

After more than a decade in exile, the couple are, like many other Syrians abroad, contemplating the possibility of returning home – whatever home looks like now.

Abdo’s mother and father died in 2016 and 2018, respectively. He hasn’t seen his brother, a cellist, in more than a decade, apart from phone calls over a lousy connection. A friend, fellow entertainer and puppeteer Zaki Kordillo, was imprisoned during Assad’s regime alongside his son and brother-in-law. Abdo said he still has no idea if they are alive.

Abdo and Afashe both managed to build new lives in the US. Abdo’s acting career eventually got back on track and he has acted alongside Nicole Kidman, in Queen of the Desert, and Tom Hanks, in A Hologram for the King.

Afashe, a women’s rights activist, is now a US citizen, but she said the “scars of displacement” remain: “I find myself torn between two countries – one where I’ve built a life, and the other that will always hold my roots

Related: ‘It was like I was reborn’: Sednaya prison’s former inmates adapt to a new Syria

“The idea that I might soon embrace my parents once more, that I could walk the streets of my homeland, feels almost unreal,” she added.

Abdo expressed gratitude for the sacrifice of the young people who dared to take on Assad, and cautious optimism over the Syrian rebel leader Ahmed al-Sharaa, previously known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Jolani.

Sharaa, the leader of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) rebel group, was once a member of al-Qaida in Iraq, but has struck a conciliatory tone, calling for Syrian unity, the protection of minorities and the disbanding of rebel factions. The US government last week lifted the $10m bounty on his head.

Syria is a diverse country, with a broad spectrum of ethnic groups, religions and languages, and Abdo echoed calls for the country’s new leaders to grant representation for all of these people.
ADVERTISEMENT


“I demand seeing women making and taking decisions, and Syrians from all different ethnicities and religious differences and sects being seated together brainstorming a bright, bright future for this country.”

For members of the Syrian diaspora around the world, the fall of the Assad regime means bridging identities and reuniting with family, some of whom may have never met before.

Nadia El-Hillal, a dentist in Phoenix, Arizona, was born and raised in the US, but spent every summer as a child with her grandparents in Damascus and Daraa.

Those visits were a formative part of her childhood, but she still remembers the ever-present fear of denunciation by government informers or members of the secret police.

“Anytime anything was brought up about the government, it was very much, ‘hush hush’. Like, you can’t really comment. You couldn’t openly speak out against the government,” said El-Hillal, 37.

Now, she says, there has been a significant shift, and for the first time El-Hillal recently learned her uncles were once imprisoned.

“It’s almost like the lid of a pressure pot has been removed, and people can breathe and can talk about the things that people have gone through,” she said.

Now with children of her own, El-Hillal dreams of taking them to Syria.

“We’re already talking about it. We don’t know if this summer is going to be too soon,” she said. “Syria is a great place to just really immerse yourself in the Arabic language. That’s a goal for us and for our kids.”

She added: “With all the things happening in a Gaza, and just our focus on constant negative news, it was the first time in a long time that we felt just like a spark of hope.”

'Protect our people': Armed Syrian volunteers watch over Damascus

Maher Al Mounes
Mon, January 6, 2025 
AFP


A member of a local neighbourhood watch guards his neighbourhood in Damascus (ANWAR AMRO) (ANWAR AMRO/AFP/AFP)

Every night, Damascus residents stand guard outside shops and homes armed with light weapons often supplied by Syria's new rulers, eager to fill the security vacuum that followed the recent takeover.

After Islamist-led rebels ousted former president Bashar al-Assad in early December, thousands of soldiers, policemen and other security officials deserted their posts, leaving the door open to petty theft, looting and other crimes.

The new Syrian authorities now face the mammoth challenge of rebuilding state institutions shaped by the Assad family's five-decade rule, including the army and security apparatuses that have all but collapsed.

In the meantime, Damascenes have jumped into action.

In the Old City, Fadi Raslan, 42, was among dozens of people cautiously watching the streets, his finger on the trigger of his gun.

"We have women and elderly people at home. We are trying to protect our people with this volunteer-based initiative," he told AFP.

"Syria needs us right now, we must stand together."

- 'Protect our neighbourhoods' -

Local committees have taken over some of the deserted checkpoints, with the authorities' approval.

Hussam Yahya, 49, and his friends have been taking turns guarding their neighbourhood, Shughur, inspecting vehicles.

"We came out to protect our neighbourhoods, shops and public property as volunteers, without any compensation," he said.

He said the new authorities, led by the Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group, have backed their initiative, providing light arms and training.

Authorities also provided them with special "local committee" cards, valid for a year.

Police chief Ahmad Lattouf said the committees had been set up to patrol neighbourhoods to prevent crime until the police could take over.

"There aren't enough police officers at the moment, but training is ongoing to increase our numbers," he said.

The Damascus committees begin their neighbourhood watches at 22:00 (19:00 GMT) every night and end them at 06:00 (03:00 GMT) the next morning.

Further north, in the cities of Aleppo and Homs, ordinary residents have also taken up weapons to guard their districts with support from authorities, residents told AFP.

The official page of the Damascus countryside area has published photos on Telegram showing young men it said were "volunteering" to protect their town and villages "under the supervision of the Military Operations Department and in coordination with General Security".
ADVERTISEMENT


It also said others were volunteering as traffic police.

- 'Rebuild our country' -

A handful of police officers affiliated with the Salvation Government of the Idlib region, the rebel bastion controlled by HTS before Assad's fall, have also been deployed in Damascus.

Traffic policemen have been called from Idlib to help, while HTS gunmen are everywhere in the capital, especially in front of government buildings including the presidential palace and police headquarters.

The authorities have also begun allowing Syrians to apply to the police academy to fill its depleted ranks.

Syria's new rulers have called on conscripts and soldiers to surrender their weapons at dedicated centres.

Since rising to power, HTS and its allies have launched security sweeps in major cities including Homs and Aleppo with the stated goal of rooting out "remnants of Assad's militias".

In the capital's busy Bab Touma neighbourhood, four local watchmen were checking people's IDs and inspecting cars entering the district.

Fuad Farha said he founded the local committee that he now heads after offering his help to "establish security" alongside the HTS-affiliated security forces.

"We underwent a quick training, mainly teaching us how to assemble weapons and take them apart and to use rifles," he said.

Residents told AFP that the committees had been effective against burglars and thieves.

"We all need to bear responsibility for our neighbourhood, our streets and our country," Farha said.

"Only this way will we be able to rebuild our country."

mam-lk/aya/ah/ysm

The Emergence of Time as a Social Force



 January 3, 2025
FacebookTwitter

Photograph Source: Alex Lehner – CC BY 2.0

In 1336, Milan was expanding to become one of the richest and most important cities in all of Europe. From the end of the 13th century, it was ruled by a powerful dynasty that would go on to found the Duchy of Milan, a major state that would remain intact until Napoleon’s armies swept across Europe centuries later. That year, Milan cemented its position as a burgeoning technological powerhouse by introducing “the first documented hour-striking clock in a public setting.” Milan’s spectacular clock was an international sensation and “has been described as the first true automat in Europe and the locking wheel as a precursor of the computer.” The hourly ringing of its bells heralded the modern world, the world we know today, dominated by the power of time, where nothing would fall outside of its ambit. It was spellbinding, the cutting edge breakthrough of its day. Until then, time was conceived not as fixed and linear, as a standardized grid within which to situate the tasks of daily life—rather the tasks of daily life were the clock, dictating and defining time rather than the inverse. The prevailing model of time was as something relativistic, informed by patterns in nature that were not rigid and unmoving. But time assumed a new form and social energy. From the early modern period on, “time” becomes one of the most frequently used words, tightening its grip on the social order and our imaginations. Time of this new kind is an artifice that must be produced through social norms and institutions. It is neither natural nor necessary, but is rather a development from complex material realities and the interests of an emerging ruling class.

After these developments in the Late Middle Ages and Early Renaissance, in which time is invented or at least socially reinvented, the concept undergoes a series of refinements that deepen its penetration of social and economic life. Until today, when the reification of time into a powerful tool of social control and domination seems almost complete. Ever more precise instruments for measuring time and smaller and more exact units of measurement have created a new and distinctly modern understanding of and relationship with time. Time continued to magnify its power, and the separation of production into smaller and more discrete steps tracks the invention and development of time. But it did more than just reshape patterns of production; it reshaped the human subject and her conception of herself and her physical and social environment. The subject would now always understand herself as being within time, adopting its purposes and logics, justifying her decisions in its terms. Later, with the social relationships and patterns of the industrial age, time is reconceived as yardstick, taskmaster, and disciplinarian, as a new God to which unending sacrifices are owed. Increasingly, every waking minute must be filled to propitiate the insatiable gods of productivity and efficiency—every activity and minute required to complete it must be scheduled and optimized. “The growth of a sense of time—the acceptance of time—is a process of adaptation to an ever more reified world.” We have become the subjects of highly refined, historically contingent new absolutism. One can express himself in any way, adopt any lifestyle in private, just insofar as he can never exercise any meaningful control over his time. The inexorability of time makes it “the ultimate model of domination,” fragmenting and dispersing everything before it by artificially separating us from the reality of experience as continuous, unified, and fluid. By breaking time into ever smaller units, we are disintegrating human life and experience itself, creating abstract, unnecessary distinctions between fundamental aspects of human life. Once meaningless and essentially unknowable, time as a social construct and system is now inescapable, “mirroring blind authority itself.”

Our lifelong relationships with time under capitalism are emotionally fraught. Time presses upon us with increasing energy and persistence in the age of the smartphone, as our calendars and other “productivity” applications ensure a steady outpouring of reminders and alerts. Time is there and it is running out fast, grains of sand piling up on the floor of the hourglass. In our era of ever-increasing pace, in which our culture places enormous value on speed, precision, and efficiency, there is the temptation to inspect each grain. Was that unit of time spent wisely? Now we have wearable devices that can provide us with information about the user’s heart rate, sleep patterns and quality, and exercise habits. Review the data and optimize the system—that’s the message, and it carries with it an indispensable temporal quality, because what is maximally efficient in any given case is dependent on time and how much of the precious commodity one has. Time is now conceived of in its pure commodity form, perfectly reducible and fungible. Andrew Niccol’s 2011 film In Time, though widely panned, explored an interesting iteration of this idea: the story plays out in a future where time has become the standard currency, and how long you can stay alive is determined by how rich you are. People are separated into segregated “Time Zones,” where the poor live out their short lives in ghettos. Even in our so-called free society, the lives of workers and the poor are necessarily shortened, for even if they are long, the amount of time free from toil—that is, the real life of the individual—is painfully and tragically short.

Several thinkers have drawn historical connections between the technologies that give us time as we know it and the social mechanisms of domination today associated with it. If we have been tempted to treat such technological advances as necessarily opening the way to increasing convenience and improved quality of life, then they give us reasons to at least subject this story to scrutiny. The work of eminent historian E.P. Thompson provides us with one of the seminal treatments of the cultural transformation wrought by the “new immediacy and insistence” of time as “[t]he clock steps on to the Elizabethan stage.” In his 1967 article “Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism,” Thompson argues that new technologies for tracking time were attended by dramatic shifts in “the inward apprehension of time of working people” and thus by “a severe restructuring of working habits—new disciplines, new incentives, and a new human nature upon which these incentives could bite effectively.” Time crept into every corner of life, as the day was bent into conformity with the needs of the economic system. In a short but fascinating aside, underlining the connection between these new ways of conceptualizing time and the most private and intimate aspects of human life, Thompson observes that, for a time, “winding the clock” took hold as a slang term for sexual activity following the 1759 publication of the popular and influential novel Tristram Shandy. Among the humorous scenes early in the novel is a question from the protagonist’s mother, put to his father during the carnal act resulting in Tristram’s conception: “have you not forgot to wind up the clock?” Everything is susceptible to commodification and exchange, time and sex included. The advent of time as we know it gave us small, discrete units capable of being alienated (in the sense of a conveyance or transferral); it fit perfectly with commodity capitalism.

There is a sense in which freedom is reducible to free time, in which domination and unfreedom are bound to the historical establishment of control over the time of others. Today, there is an overwhelming feeling “that people shouldn’t really have control over their time—that they can’t be trusted with it, that they need to be dominated in order for there to be some social order.” From the philosopher Theodor W. Adorno (1903-1969) we receive one of the most trenchant looks at the concept of time in its current social dimensions. Adorno’s 1969 essay “Free Time” attempts to ground a critique of our approaches to free time under contemporary conditions, contending that our relationships with it are shaped in decisive ways, “functionally determined” by “relations of production into which people are born.” Adorno believes fundamentally that we are living within an “age of truly unparalleled social integration,” in which institutional cohesion and consolidated power are such that the individual is functionally trapped, unable to contend with the almost total subjugation of free time. Adorno thinks this means “that ‘free time’ is tending toward its own opposite, and is becoming a parody of itself.” Adorno’s arguments, though filled with a kind of curmudgeonly condescension, cut into the inescapable social totality created by capitalism: “The miracles which people expect from their holidays or from other special treats in their free time, are subject to endless spiteful ridicule, since even here they never get beyond the threshold of the eversame … .” For Adorno, there is a deep sense in which the cultural fixation on and celebration of not being at work, of engaging in carefully curated and choreographed hobbies and leisure activities, itself shows the extent to which capitalism and its characteristic program of time discipline has come to dominate all of life. “If people were able to make their own decisions about themselves and their lives, if they were not caught up in the realm of the eversame, they would not have to be bored.”

Adorno demonstrates that, by themselves, the technological mechanisms necessary for the distillation of time were insufficient to bring about the new power of the clock; also necessary were the social and economic predicates. Successive advances in the sophistication and accuracy of timekeeping coincided with efforts to rationalize uses of land and labor. When the English ruling class engrossed the land, they engrossed the time of the peasantry along with it as a matter of course. The political world, its problems and possibilities, are inconceivable absent their temporal character; we cannot imagine the political world without reference to time. We could almost index political categories by their attitudes toward time and the ceaseless flow of history, where conservatives “stand athwart history,” hoping to slow in some way the passage of time. For their part, progressives associate movement into an unknown future with social and technological developments and steady advancement. In the current moment, when capital continues to concentrate and the crisis realities of this growing inequality visit us with increasing frequency, capitalism seems to have conceptually preempted the future: even as we live under its domination and see its innate tensions play out, there is a sense that the system of global capitalism cannot end. Progressives and liberals have made their peace with capitalism, quietly resigning efforts to imagine and build alternatives. We’re stuck at the end of history, without the tools to go beyond the dead end.

But even as we’re stuck, we seem to be moving faster and faster, careening even. The incredible salience and ever-increasing speed of these cultural and technological changes has been such that they have changed the way we talk about history and time. Long before the spread of the consumer internet pushed us into a new Information Age, generations of modern people had noticed that the technological developments and scientific discoveries and advances were increasingly frequent. Contemporary scholarship on the Anthropocene and the global impact of human civilization across multiple domains has introduced the concept of the Great Acceleration, “twin surges, of energy use and population growth.” This notion of an ongoing age of Great Acceleration can be generalized as a framework for analysis. Today we observe unprecedented, transformational acceleration in general technological development, the overwhelming pace of work, the frenetic information flows and consumption patterns, the ominous concentration of capital, and unsustainable environmental degradation. Everything has been picking up speed. Just as more granular company data provide a clearer picture and thus more focused and complete control over workers and the processes of production generally, so did increasingly precise time measurement mean stronger and more inescapable control over workers and society at large. As capitalist society has grown more complex and fast-paced, the amount of information we are being asked to confront, analyze, and produce every day has grown tremendously, informing and changing our subjective impressions of the passage of time: we can think of the increasing compression and density of information as accelerating time, an adjustment to our experience of time phenomenologically.

If time is experienced as the constant, irreversible outpouring of changes in the state of the system, higher degrees of information density may be experienced as an acceleration of time. Our most scientifically sophisticated concepts of time are intimately bound up with the fact of our limited knowledge and understanding, of its slippery, relativistic nature. We cannot define time without reference to physical space, without a description of its relative, flexible coextension with space. This relationship holds in politics and philosophy no less than in physics. Several related concepts from these fields help give form and substance to the notion of time. One common way of thinking about time presents it as an arrow—always pointed in one direction, toward the future, away from the past, always moving in that direction. But why does time run only in one direction? Our understanding of time is connected to models of thermodynamics, in particular the Second Law, which is the idea that the measure of disorder in a given closed physical system tends to increase. This measure of disorder is called entropy, where a higher entropy value expresses the lack of organization that grows as the component parts of the system attempt to move toward a state of equilibrium. More precisely, entropy is a measure of the number of states the overall system could produce while maintaining the same overall energy profile. “Entropy,” according to leading theoretical physicist Sean Carroll, “is a way of characterizing our ignorance about the system.” As disorder and disorganization spread through a system, it becomes increasingly difficult to describe in formal, mathematical terms. The emergence and multiplication of these asymmetries are experienced as the passage of time.

We live in a time when many of our most advanced scientific minds wonder aloud whether we will be replaced entirely by computers—and, more than that, whether such a replacement might be desirable and good. Many of our leading technophiles and techno-optimists believe that in inventing AI, we have accelerated evolution and inaugurated a new age. And if all that matters to us is speed and efficiency, then perhaps they are right. But if there is more to measure than efficiency, narrowly constructed in terms of capitalist logics, then we need tools to pass beyond the dead end and reimagine time socially. We have inherited varied critiques of time as a social reality, and these can help us render both better concepts of time and new ways to counter its power in social and economic life. Without full and complete access to our time, we are deprived of our lives themselves. The real mystery is “that there is not more active resistance to this state of affairs,” that people have come to see the total conquest of their time on earth as a condition both natural and inevitable.

David S. D’Amato is an attorney, businessman, and independent researcher. He is a Policy Advisor to the Future of Freedom Foundation and a regular opinion contributor to The Hill. His writing has appeared in Forbes, Newsweek, Investor’s Business Daily, RealClearPolitics, The Washington Examiner, and many other publications, both popular and scholarly. His work has been cited by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, among others.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for CLOCK

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for TYRANT TIME

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Tyrant Time-Tempus Fug'it

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Tick, Tock, We Live By The Clock


Thursday, January 02, 2025

 

Wilson’s Folly, The Washington Hegemon and Why There Is Still No Peace On Earth



Another Christmas has passed and there is still no peace on earth. And the proximate cause of that vexing reality is the $1.3 trillion Warfare State planted on the banks of the Potomac – along with its web of war-making capabilities, bases, alliances and vassals stretching to the four corners of the planet.

So positioned, it stands in stark mockery of John Qunicy Adam’s sage advice to his new nation 200-years ago:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The last bolded sentence pretty much sums up the foolish, destructive, unnecessary and fiscally calamitous Forever Wars hatched in Washington all the way back to 1950. Nearly without exception they were waged against alleged foreign “monsters” of the very kind which John Quincy Adams urged his countrymen not to pursue: Kim Il-Sung, Mohammad Mosaddegh, Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba, Ho Chi Minh, Sukarno, Salvador Allende, Ayatollah Khomeini, Daniel Ortega, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, Nicolas Maduro, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are but the most prominent among these targets of Washington’s relentless global-spanning search for “monsters to destroy”.

Yet without exception not one of these assorted authoritarians, dictators, tyrants, thugs and revolutionists, along with the nation’s they ruled, posed a direct threat to the American homeland. Not even Putin or Xi could actually dream of mounting the massive armada of land, air and sea-forces needed to transit the great ocean moats and lay waste to the security and liberty of 335 million Americans domiciled from “sea to shining sea”.

Indeed, there is currently no nation on earth that has anything close to the First Strike force that would be needed to totally overwhelm America’s triad nuclear deterrent and thereby avoid a retaliatory annihilation of its own country and people if it attempted to strike first. After all, the US has 3,700 active nuclear warheads, of which about 1,800 are operational at any point in time. In turn, these are spread under the seven seas, in hardened silos and among a bomber fleet of 66 B-2 and B-52s – all beyond the detection or reach of any other nuclear power.

For instance, the Ohio class nuclear submarines each have 20 missile tubes, with each missile carrying an average of four-to-five warheads. That’s 90 independently targetable warheads per boat. At any given time 12 of the 14 Ohio class nuclear subs are actively deployed, and spread around the oceans of the planet within a firing range of 4,000 miles.

So at the point of attack that’s 1,080 deep-sea nuclear warheads cruising along the ocean bottoms that would need to be identified, located and neutralized before any would be nuclear attacker or blackmailer even gets started. Indeed, with respect to the “Where’s Waldo?” aspect of it, the sea-based nuclear force alone is a powerful guarantor of America’s homeland security. Even Russia’s vaunted hypersonic missiles couldn’t find or take out by surprise the US sea-based deterrent.

And then there are the roughly 300 nukes aboard the 66 strategic bombers, which also are not sitting on a single airfield Pearl Harbor style waiting to be obliterated either, but are constantly rotating in the air and on the move. Likewise, the 400 Minutemen III missiles are spread out in extremely hardened silos deep underground across a broad swath of the upper Midwest. Each missile currently carries one nuclear warhead in compliance with the Start Treaty but could be MIRV’d in response to a severe threat, thereby further compounding and complicating an adversary’s First Strike calculus.

Needless to say, there is no way, shape or form that America’s nuclear deterrent can be neutralized by a blackmailer. And that gets us to the heart of the case for drastically downsizing the hegemonic Warfare State domiciled on the Potomac River. To wit, according to the most recent CBO estimates the nuclear triad will cost only about $75 billion per year to maintain over the next decade, including allowances for periodic weapons upgrades; and that’s just 7.5% of the current nearly $1 trillion per year military budget.

At the same time, neither are there any technologically-advanced industrial powers who have either the capability or intention to attack the American homeland with conventional forces. To do that you need a massive military armada including a Navy and Air Force many times the size of current US forces, huge air and sealift resources and humongous supply lines and logistics capacities that have never been even dreamed of by any other nation on the planet.

You also need an initial GDP of say $50 trillion to sustain what would be the most colossal mobilization of weaponry and materiale in human history. And that’s to say nothing of needing to be ruled by suicidal leaders willing to risk the nuclear destruction of their own countries, allies and economic commerce in order to accomplish, what? Occupy Denver?

The entire idea that there is a post-cold war existential threat to America’s security is just nuts. For one thing, nobody has the GDP or military heft. Russia’s GDP is a scant $2 trillion, not the $50 trillion that would needed for it to put invasionary forces on the New Jersey shores. And its defense budget is $75 billion, which amounts to about four weeks of waste in Washington’s $1 trillion monster.

As for China, it doesn’t have the GDP heft to even think about landing on the California shores, notwithstanding Wall Street’s endless kowtowing to the China Boom. The fact is, China has accumulated in excess of $50 trillion of debt in barely two decades!

Therefore, it didn’t grow organically in the historic capitalist mode; it printed, borrowed, spent and built like there was no tomorrow. The resulting simulacrum of prosperity would not last a year if its $3.6 trillion global export market – the source of the hard cash that keeps its Ponzi upright – were to crash, which is exactly what would happen if it tried to invade America.

To be sure, China’s totalitarian leaders are immensely misguided and downright evil from the perspective of their oppressed population. But they are not stupid. They stay in power by keeping the people relatively fat and happy and would never risk bringing down what amounts to an economic house of cards that has not even a vague approximation in human history.

Indeed, when it comes to the threat of a conventional military invasion the vast Atlantic and Pacific moats are even greater barriers to foreign military assault in the 21st century than they so successfully proved to be in the 19th century. That’s because today’s advanced surveillance technology and anti-ship missiles would consign an enemy naval armada to Davy Jones’ Locker nearly as soon as it steamed out of its own territorial waters.

The fact is, in an age when the sky is flush with high tech surveillance assets a massive conventional force armada couldn’t possibly be secretly built, tested and mustered for surprise attack without being noticed in Washington. There can be no repeat of the Japanese strike force – the Akagi, Kaga, Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku and Zuikaku – steaming across the Pacific toward Pearl Harbor sight unseen.

Indeed, America’s ostensible “enemies” actually have no offensive or invasionary capacity at all. Russia has only one aircraft carrier—a 1980s era relic which has been in dry-dock for repairs since 2017 and is equipped with neither a phalanx of escort ships nor a suite of attack and fighter aircraft—and at the moment not even an active crew.

Likewise, China has just three aircraft carriers – two of which are refurbished rust buckets purchased from the remnants of the old Soviet Union, and which carriers do not even have modern catapults for launching their strike aircraft.

In short, neither China nor Russia will be steaming their tiny 3 and 1 carrier battle groups toward the shores of either California or New Jersey any time soon. An invasionary force that had any chance at all of surviving a US fortress defense of cruise missiles, drones, jet fighters, attack submarines and electronics warfare would need to be 100X larger.

Again, there is also no GDP in the world – $2 trillion for Russia or $18 trillion for China—that is even remotely close in size to the $50 trillion, or even $100 trillion, that would be needed to support such an invasionary force without capsizing the home economy.

Yet and yet. Washington still maintains a globe-spanning conventional war-fighting capability that it never really needed even during the cold war. But now, fully one-third of a century after the Soviet Empire collapsed and China went the Red Capitalist route of deep global economic integration, it amounts to utterly extraneous and unneeded muscle.

Nevertheless, all of this unneeded military muscle – along with globe-spanning bases, alliances and hegemonic pretensions – have everywhere and always been justified by the claim that that the assorted foreign devils Washington has attacked amount to incipient totalitarian monsters. That is, if they are not stopped today, they will inexorably become the next Hitler or Stalin of tomorrow.

The presumption is that the likes of these two twentieth-century mutants are somehow embedded in the DNA of humankind. And unless resolutely and timely thwarted, each new tinpot tyrant who comes along will gobble up their neighbors in falling domino fashion until the economic and military might of their accumulated conquests threatens the security of the entire planet, including the fair lands in faraway North America.

Accordingly, the War Party claims that deterrence of incipient foreign monsters needs be accomplished through robust international arrangements for “collective security” and continuous preventive interventions, led by the peace-loving politicians and apparatchiks bivouacked on the banks of the Potomac. The latter have finally learned the lessons of WWII and the Cold War, or so it goes, that eternal vigilance is imperative and that incipient monsters must be crushed in the cradle before they metastasize into the next Hitler or Stalin.

That’s always the syllogism whenever a new rascal, tyrant or local belligerent appears on the scene, and it always leads to hideously flawed claims of universal peril, as embodied in the current proxy war with Putin in Ukraine. That particular outbreak of mindless insanity has so far cost the lives of upwards of 400,000 Ukrainian soldiers and the displacement of 10 million civilians across Europe. More than $200 billion in Western public money has been wasted to date. And now during the last days of “Joe Biden” Washington and the NATO apparatus want to donate tens of billions more to prolong this futile slaughter before Donald Trump might actually sue for peace.

Yet a passing familiarity with the last few centuries of history makes it obvious that what is happening in Ukraine is not an unprovoked Russian invasion of its neighbor but a civil and territorial war in what had been the shape-shifting “borderlands” (viz. “ukraine”) and vassals of Imperial Russia, and which became a defined state only upon the bloody edicts of Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev. So allowing this aberrant communist state of 1922-1991 to join its Soviet sire in the dustbin of history amounts to a no brainer.

And by all the evidence that is what had been inchoately wanting to materialize on the political ground in Ukraine after the iron fist of communist rule ended in 1991. As we have documented elsewhere, the Russian-speaking inhabitants of the Donbass and southern rim along the Black Sea had voted 80-20 against the Ukrainian nationalist candidates, who in reciprocation had garnered 80-20 pluralities in the central and western regions including historic Galicia and remnants of Poland. Thus, this communist artifact of a broader 20th century history that needn’t have happened either (per below) could have been partitioned with dispatch ala Czechoslovakia and that would have been the end it. The dead, maimed and disabled in their tens of thousands need not have been victims, nor would the hideous waste of economic resources and military material in its hundreds of billions have ever transpired.

But it happened because the interested parties permanently camped on the Potomac need an endless parade of “monsters to destroy” in order to justify the great enterprise of global hegemony and the opportunity for glory and globe-trotting importance that it confers upon Washington’s self-appointed proconsuls. And that’s to say nothing of the trillion dollars per year of fiscal largesse that it pumps into the insatiable maw of the military-industrial-security-foreign aid-think tank-NGO complex—an arrangement that coincidently has set the greater Washington metropolis aglow with prosperity.

In the current case of Ukraine, however, they have literally thrown rationality to the winds. Sleepy Joe himself in various addresses to the nation has incessantly trotted out the hoary canard that Putin means to resurrect the old Soviet Empire and that Poland, the Baltics and the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin are next on his game plan of conquest, if he is not stopped well east of the Dnieper River. And, of course, Russian tanks in Poland would mean, under NATO Article 5, American troops being mustered into battle and the commencement of WWIII for all practical purposes.

Of course, this whole scenario is utter poppycock, hogwash, humbug and malarky all rolled into one malefic lie. There is not a shred of evidence that Putin has anything in mind other than the preventing the implantation of a NATO advance guard on his doorstep and cruise missiles within 30 minutes of Moscow. The whole Ukraine War saga, in fact, amounts to a Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse.

In turn, the fact that official Washington does not even remotely see the irony is due to the fact that the War Machine on the banks of the Potomac has so thoroughly polluted the intellectual waters and ethers alike with the incipient Hitler/Stalin canard that it has just robotically slotted “Putin” into the latest incarnation of this hoary formula without even a tinge of embarrassment.

To be sure, Vlad Putin is no prince of men, and he does have his contemporary, if small time, gulags to show for it.  But he is way, way too smart and historically educated to wish to fall on his sword in Poland or anywhere else west of the Dnieper where Russians are distinctly unwelcome. Indeed, the very thought that this canard is a valid argument for the mayhem Washington is now conducting in Ukraine is a veritable affront to adult reasoning.

So let us turn to the predicate. How in the world did the notion that the planet is teeming with incipient monsters that can only be tamed by the global presence and continuous vigilance of a Washington-led and -kitted planetary gendarme ever take such deep roots and persevere for so long?

Alas, the answer lies in the truth that much of the 20th Century was an unforced error – a giant mistake that reaches back to Woodrow Wilson’s utter folly in bringing America into World War I, thereby ignominiously extinguishing the wisdom of John Quincy Adams in the mud and blood of northern France.

Wilson’s unforgiveable error was to put the United States into the Great War for utterly no good reason of homeland security, which is the only valid basis for foreign policy in a peaceful Republic. The European war posed not an iota of threat to the safety and security of the citizens of Lincoln NE, or Worcester MA or Sacramento CA. In that respect, Wilson’s putative defense of “freedom of the seas” and the rights of neutrals was an empty shibboleth; his call to make the world safe for democracy, a preposterous pipe dream.

Actually, his thinly veiled reason for plunging the US into the cauldron of the Great War was none of the above. Instead, what he really sought was a big seat at the peace conference table – so that he could remake the world in response to god’s calling.

But this was a world about which he was blatantly ignorant; a task for which he was temperamentally unsuited; and an utter chimera based on 14 points that were so abstractly devoid of substance as to constitute mental play dough.

Or, as his alter-ego and sycophant, Colonel House, put it:  Intervention positioned Wilson to play –

The noblest part that has ever come to the son of man”.

America thus plunged into Europe’s carnage, and forevermore shed its century-long Republican tradition of anti-militarism and non-intervention in the quarrels of the Old World. John Quincy Adam’s wisdom got shit-canned in one fell swoop.

Needless to say, there was absolutely nothing noble that came of Wilson’s intervention. It led to a peace of vengeful victors, triumphant nationalists and avaricious imperialists – when the war would have otherwise ended in a bedraggled peace of mutually exhausted bankrupts and discredited war parties on both sides.

By so altering the course of history, Wilson’s war bankrupted Europe and midwifed 20th century totalitarianism in Russia and Germany. That is, it gestated the sheer historical aberrations of Hitler and Stalin–neither of which would have materialized absent Wilson’s feckless intervention in April 1917.

The present-day Washington hegemons, therefore, are not fighting the perennial battle of mankind’s better angels against the totalitarian darkness that is always incipient in the geo-political intercourse of nations. To the contrary, Hitler and Stalin were sheer accidents of history, whose evil interludes can be traced not to mankind’s collective DNA, but to that of the vainglorious fool who lied to the American public in the 1916 election about keeping the nation out of war, and promptly plunged it into the cauldron that made Hitler and Stalin possible.

Moreover, Wilson’s intervention in the Great War and the deplorable aftermath at Versailles, in turn, eventually led to the Great Depression, the Welfare State and Keynesian economics, World War II, the holocaust, the Cold War, the permanent Warfare State and today’s malignant military-industrial complex.

They also spawned Nixon’s 1971 destruction of sound money, Reagan’s failure to tame Big Government and Greenspan’s destructive cult of monetary central planning.

So, too, flowed the Bush’s wars of intervention and occupation, their fatal blow to the failed states in the lands of Islam foolishly created by the imperialist mapmakers at Versailles and the resulting endless waves of blowback and terrorism that afflicted the world 70 years later.

And not the least of the ills begotten in Wilson’s war is the modern rogue regime of central bank money printing, and the Greenspan-Bernanke-Yellen-Powell plague of bubble economics which never stops showering the 1% with the monumental windfalls from central bank enabled speculation.

So let us briefly review the building blocks of that lamentable detour of history. None of it was inevitable or unavoidable. And all of the claims about stopping still another Hitler or Stalin which have kept it alive are bogus to the core.

That is to say, grasp the utter perfidy and senselessness of Wilson’s plunge into the Great War in April 1917 and all of the mythical 20th century justifications for the Great Hegemon on the Potomac – —Lenin, Hitler, Munich, Stalin, the Iron Curtain, world communism on the march – all vanish with alacrity. At length, there was and is no need to monsters to destroy because America’s homeland security has never been seriously imperiled.

So let us amplify on the contrafactual history upon which this proposition rests.

First, had the Great War ended in the spring of 1917 by a mutual withdrawal from the utterly stalemated trenches of the Western Front, as it was destined to, there would have been no disastrous summer offensive by the Kerensky government, or subsequent massive mutiny in Petrograd that enabled Lenin’s flukish seizure of power in November. That is, the 20th century would not have been saddled with what metastasized into the Stalinist nightmare or with a Soviet state that poisoned the peace of nations for 75 years, while the nuclear sword of Damocles hung over the planet.

Likewise, there would have been no abomination known as the Versailles peace treaty; no “stab in the back” legends owing to the Weimar government’s forced signing of the “war guilt” clause; no continuance of England’s brutal post-armistice blockade that delivered Germany’s women and children into starvation and death and left a demobilized 3-million-man army destitute, bitter and susceptible to a permanent political rampage of vengeance.

So too, there would have been no acquiescence in the dismemberment of Germany and the spreading of its parts and pieces to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Austria and Italy – with the consequent revanchist agitation that nourished the Nazi’s with patriotic public support in the rump of the fatherland.

Nor would there have materialized the French occupation of the Ruhr and the war reparations crisis that led to the destruction of the German middle class in the 1923 hyperinflation; and, finally, the history books would have never recorded the Hitlerian ascent to power in 1933 and all the evils that flowed thereupon.

In short, on the approximate 110th anniversary of Sarajevo, the world has been turned upside down.

First and foremost, the Great War and then most especially the “peace of victors” made possible by Woodrow Wilson’s intervention destroyed the classic liberal international economic order of the late 19th century. Honest money, relatively free trade, rising international capital flows and rapidly growing global economic integration had all blossomed during the 40-year span between 1870 and 1914.

That golden age had brought rising living standards, stable prices, massive capital investment, prolific technological progress and pacific relations among the major nations – a condition that was never equaled, either before or since.

Now, owing to Wilson’s fetid patrimony, we have the opposite: A world of the Warfare State, the Welfare State, Central Bank omnipotence and a crushing burden of private and public debts. That is, a thoroughgoing statist regime that is fundamentally inimical to capitalist prosperity, freedom-based economic life and the flourishing of private liberty and constitutional safeguards against the relentless encroachments of the state.

In a word, Wilson has a lot to answer for. So let us try to summarize his own “war guilt” in the eight major propositions below. Together they explain the fallacious origins of the perpetual Hitler-Stalin syndrome and why the Washington Hegemon which have falsely arisen to contest it is the ultimate barrier to peace on earth in the year 2024.

Proposition #1: The Great War was about nothing worth dying for and engaged no recognizable principle of human betterment. There were many blackish hats, but no white ones.

Instead, it was an avoidable calamity issuing from a cacophony of political incompetence, cowardice, avarice and tomfoolery.

So you can blame the bombastic and impetuous Kaiser Wilhelm for setting the stage with his foolish dismissal of Bismarck in 1890, failure to renew the Russian reinsurance treaty shortly thereafter and his quixotic build-up of the German Navy after the turn of the century, thereby generating fears in London that its dominance of the seas would be compromised.

Likewise, you can blame the French for lashing themselves to a war-treaty that could be triggered by the intrigues of a decadent court in St. Petersburg, where the Czar still claimed divine rights and the Czarina ruled behind the scenes on the hideous advice of Rasputin.

So too, you can censure Russia’s foreign minister Sazonov for his delusions of greater Slavic grandeur that had encouraged Serbia’s provocations after Sarajevo; and castigate the doddering emperor Franz Joseph for hanging onto power into his 67th year on the throne and thereby leaving his crumbling empire vulnerable to the suicidal impulses of General Conrad’s “war party”.

Similarly, you can indict the duplicitous German Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg, for allowing the Austrians to believe that the Kaiser endorsed their declaration of war on Serbia; and pillory Winston Churchill and London’s “war party” for failing to recognize that the Schlieffen Plan’s invasion through Belgium was no threat to England, but an unavoidable German defense against a two-front war on the continent.

But after all that – most especially don’t bother to talk about the defense of democracy, the vindication of liberalism or the thwarting of Prussian autocracy and militarism.

To the contrary, the British war party led by the likes of Churchill and Kitchener was all about the glory of empire, not the vindication of democracy; France’ principal war aim was the revanchist drive to recover Alsace-Lorrain – mainly a German-speaking territory for 600 years until it was conquered by Louis XIV, only to be lost back to the Germans after France’s humiliation in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War.

In any event, German autocracy was already on its last leg as betokened by the arrival of universal social insurance and the election of a socialist-liberal majority in the Reichstag on the eve of the war; and the Austro-Hungarian, Balkan and Ottoman goulash of nationalities, respectively, would have erupted in interminable regional conflicts, regardless of who won the Great War.

In short, nothing of principle or higher morality was at stake in the outcome.

Proposition # 2:  The Great War posed no national security threat whatsoever to the United States.  Presumably, of course, the danger was not the Entente powers – but Germany and its allies.

The reasons why this is true are not difficult to divine. After the Schlieffen Plan offensive failed on September 11, 1914, the German Army became incarcerated in a bloody, bankrupting, two-front land war that ensured its inexorable demise. Likewise, after the battle of Jutland in May 1916, the great German surface fleet was bottled up in its homeports – an inert flotilla of steel that posed no threat to the American coast 4,000 miles away.

As for the rest of the central powers, the Ottoman and Hapsburg empires already had an appointment with the dustbin of history. Nor need we even bother with the fourth member of the central powers – that is, the Kingdom of Bulgaria?

Proposition #3:  Wilson’s pretexts for war on Germany – submarine warfare and the Zimmerman telegram – are not half what they are cracked-up to be by Warfare State historians.

As to the so-called freedom of the seas and neutral shipping rights, the story is blatantly simple. In November 1914, England declared the North Sea to be a “war zone”; threatened neutral shipping with deadly sea mines; declared that anything which could conceivably be of use to the German army – directly or indirectly – to be contraband that would be seized or destroyed; and announced that the resulting blockade of German ports was designed to starve Berlin into submission.

A few months later, Germany retaliated, announcing its submarine warfare policy designed to the stem the flow of food, raw materials and armaments to England.  It was the desperate antidote of a land power to England’s crushing sea-borne blockade.

Accordingly, there existed a state of total warfare in the northern European waters, meaning that the traditional “rights” of neutrals were irrelevant and were, in fact, disregarded by both sides. In arming merchantmen and stowing munitions on passenger liners, England was hypocritical and utterly cavalier about the resulting mortal danger to innocent civilians – as exemplified by the 4.3 million rifle cartridges and hundreds of tons of other munitions carried in the hull of the Lusitania.

Likewise, German resort to so-called “unrestricted submarine warfare” in February 1917 was brutal and stupid but came in response to massive domestic political pressure during what was known as the “turnip winter” in Germany.  By then, the country was starving from the English blockade – literally.

Before he resigned on principle in June 1915, Secretary William Jennings Bryan got it right. Had he been less diplomatic he would have said never should American boys be crucified on the cross of a Cunard liner state room so that a few thousand wealthy plutocrats could exercise a putative “right” to wallow in luxury while knowingly cruising into in harm’s way.

As to the Zimmerman telegram, it was never actually delivered to Mexico at all. Instead, it had been sent from Berlin as an internal diplomatic communique to the German ambassador in Washington, who had labored mightily to keep his country out of war with the US. But British intelligence had intercepted it, and sat on it for more than a month waiting for an opportune moment to incite America into war hysteria.

As it happened, this so-called bombshell was actually just an internal foreign ministry rumination about a possible plan to approach the Mexican president regarding an alliance in the event that the US first declared war on Germany.

So the so-called Zimmerman telegram was neither surprising nor a legitimate casus belli. Furthermore, contingent alliance making was aggressively practiced by both sides.

For instance, did not the entente bribe Italy into the war with promises of large chunks of Austria? Did not the hapless Rumanians finally join the entente when they were promised Transylvania?  Did not the Greeks bargain endlessly over the Turkish territories they were to be awarded for joining the allies? Did not Lawrence of Arabia bribe the Sherif of Mecca with the promise of vast Arabian lands to be extracted from the Ottomans?

Why, then, would Germany – if attacked by the USA – not promise the return of Texas?

Proposition #4:  Europe had expected a short war, and actually got one when the Schlieffen plan offensive bogged down 30 miles outside of Paris on the Marne River in mid-September 1914.  Within three months, the Western Front had formed and coagulated into blood and mud – a ghastly 400-mile corridor of senseless carnage, unspeakable slaughter and incessant military stupidity that stretched from the Flanders coast across Belgium and northern France to the Swiss frontier.

The next four years witnessed an undulating line of trenches, barbed wire entanglements, tunnels, artillery emplacements and shell-pocked scorched earth that rarely moved more than a few miles in either direction, and which ultimately claimed more than 4 million casualties on the Allied side and 3.5 million on the German side.

If there was any doubt that Wilson’s catastrophic intervention converted a war of attrition, stalemate and eventual mutual exhaustion into Pyrrhic victory for the allies, it was memorialized in four developments during 1916—all of which occurred before Wilson’s gratuitous intervention.

In the first, the Germans wagered everything on a massive offensive designed to overrun the fortresses of Verdun – the historic defensive battlements on France’s northeast border that had stood since Roman times, and which had been massively reinforced after the France’s defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.

But notwithstanding the mobilization of 100 divisions, the greatest artillery bombardment campaign every recorded until then, and repeated infantry offensives from February through November that resulted in upwards of 400,000 German casualties, the Verdun Offensive failed.

The second event was its mirror image – the massive British and French offensive known as the second battle of the Somme, which commenced with equally destructive artillery barrages on July 1, 1916, and then for three month sent waves of infantry into the maws of German machine guns and artillery. It too ended in colossal failure, but only after more than 600,000 English and French casualties including a quarter million dead.

In between these bloodbaths, the stalemate was reinforced by the aforementioned naval showdown at Jutland that cost the British far more sunken ships and drowned sailors than the Germans, but also caused the Germans to retire their surface fleet to port and never again challenge the Royal Navy in open water combat.

Finally, by year-end 1916 the German generals who had destroyed the Russian armies in the East with only a tiny one-ninth fraction of the German army—Generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff – were given command of the Western Front. Presently, they radically changed Germany’s war strategy by recognizing that the growing allied superiority in manpower, owing to the British homeland draft of 1916 and mobilization of forces from throughout the empire, made a German offensive breakthrough will nigh impossible.

So they ordered a strategic volte-face, resulting in the Hindenburg Line. The latter was a military marvel based on a checkerboard array of hardened pillbox-based machine gunners and maneuver forces rather than mass infantry on the front lines, and an intricate labyrinth of highly engineered tunnels, deep earth shelters, rail connections, heavy artillery and flexible reserves in the rear. It was also augmented by the transfer of Germany’s eastern armies to the western front – giving it 200 divisions and 4 million men on the Hindenburg Line.

This precluded any hope of Entente victory. By 1917 there were not enough able-bodied draft age men left in France and England to overcome the Hindenburg Line, which, in turn, was designed to bleed white the Entente armies led by butchers like British General Haig and French General Joffre until their governments sued for peace.

Thus, with the Russian army’s disintegration in the east and the stalemate frozen indefinitely in the west by early 1917, it was only a matter of months before mutinies among the French lines, demoralization in London, mass starvation and privation in Germany and bankruptcy all around would have led to a peace of mutual exhaustion and a European-wide political revolt against the war makers.

Wilson’s intervention thus did not remake the world. But it did radically re-channel the contours of 20th century history. And, as they say, not in a good way.

Proposition #5:  Wilson’s epic error not only produced the Entente’s victory and the abomination of Versailles and all its progeny, but also the transformation of the Federal Reserve from a passive “banker’s bank” to an interventionist central bank knee-deep in Wall Street, war finance and macroeconomic management.

This, too, was a crucial historical hinge point because Carter Glass’ 1913 act did not empower the new Reserve banks to even own government bonds. Instead, it authorized them only to passively discount for cash good commercial credits and receivables brought to the rediscount windows of the 12 regional reserve banks by local commercial banks; and contemplated no open market interventions in the debt markets of Wall Street or any remit at all with respect to GDP growth, jobs, inflation, housing or all the rest of modern day monetary central planning targets.

In fact, Carter Glass’ “banker’s bank” didn’t care whether the GDP growth rate was positive 4%, negative 4% or anything in-between; its modest job was to channel liquidity into the banking system in response to the ebb and flow of commerce and production on main street.

Jobs, growth and prosperity were to remain the unplanned outcome of millions of producers, consumers, investors, savers, entrepreneurs and speculators operating on the free market, not the business of the state.

But Wilson’s war took the national debt from about $1 billion or $11 per capita – a level which had been maintained since the Battle of Gettysburg – to $27 billion, including upwards of $10 billion re-loaned to the allies to enable them to continue the war. There is not a chance that this massive eruption of Federal borrowing could have been financed out of domestic savings in the private market.

So the Fed charter was changed owing to the exigencies of war to permit it to own government debt and to discount loans to private citizens collateralized by Treasury paper.

In due course, the famous and massive Liberty Bond drives became a glorified Ponzi scheme. Patriotic Americans borrowed money from their banks, bought war bonds and then pledged their war bonds as collateral. In turn, the banks borrowed money from the Fed, and re-hypothecated their customer’s collateral. Finally, the Reserve banks created the billions they loaned to the commercial banks out of thin air, thereby suffocating the forces of supply and demand, and, instead, pegging interest rates at arbitrarily low levels for the duration of the war.

When Wilson was done saving the world, America had an interventionist central bank schooled in the art of interest rate pegging and rampant expansion of fiat credit not anchored in the real bills of commerce and trade; and its incipient Warfare and Welfare states had an agency of public debt monetization that could permit massive government spending without the inconvenience of high taxes on the people or the crowding out of business investment by the high interest rates otherwise needed to balance supply and demand in the bond pits.

Proposition # 6:  By prolonging the war and massively increasing the level of debt and money printing on all sides, Wilson’s folly prevented a proper post-war resumption of the classical gold standard at the pre-war parities.

This failure of “resumption”, in turn, paved the way for the breakdown of monetary order and world trade in 1931 – a break which turned a standard post-war economic cleansing into the Great Depression, and a decade of protectionism, beggar-thy-neighbor currency manipulation and ultimately rearmament and statist dirigisme.

In essence, the English and French governments had raised billions from their citizens on the solemn promise that it would be repaid at the pre-war gold parities. That is to say, the massive emissions of war bonds were to be money good in gold at the end of hostilities.

But the combatant governments had printed too much fiat currency and inflation during the war, and through domestic regimentation, heavy taxation and unfathomable combat destruction of economic life in northern France had drastically impaired their private economies.

Accordingly, under Churchill’s foolish leadership England re-pegged to gold at the old parity in 1925 but had no political will or capacity to reduce bloated war-time wages, costs and prices in a commensurate manner, or to live with the austerity and shrunken living standards that honest liquidation of its war debts required.

At the same time, France ended up betraying its war time lenders, and re-pegged the Franc two years later at a drastically depreciated level. This resulted in a spurt of beggar-thy-neighbor prosperity and the accumulation of pound sterling claims that would eventually blow-up the London money market and the sterling based “gold exchange standard” that the Bank of England and British Treasury had peddled as a poor man’s way back on gold.

Yet under this “gold lite” contraption based on Sterling as the reserve currency, France, Holland, Sweden and other surplus countries accumulated huge amounts of sterling liabilities in lieu of settling their accounts in gold bullion. That is, they essentially had made billions of unsecured loans to the British. They did this on the British government’s “promise” that the pound sterling would remain at $4.87 per dollar come hell or high water – -just as it had for 200 years of peacetime before.

But British politicians betrayed their promises and their central bank creditors in September 1931 by suspending redemption and floating the pound, thereby shattering the parity and causing the decade-long struggle for resumption of an honest gold standard to fail.  Depressionary contraction of world trade, capital flows and capitalist enterprise inherently followed.

Proposition # 7:  By turning America overnight into the granary, arsenal and banker of the wartime Entente, the US economy had been distorted, bloated and deformed into a giant, but unstable and unsustainable global exporter and creditor.

During the war years, for example, US exports increased by 4X, GDP soared from $40 billion to $90 billion and Washington accumulated the aforementioned $10 billion debt from England and France.  Consequently, incomes and land prices soared in the farm belt, and steel, chemical, machinery, munitions and ship construction boomed like never before – in substantial part because Uncle Sam essentially provided vendor finance to the bankrupt allies in desperate need of both military and civilian goods.

Under classic rules, there should have been a nasty correction after the war – as the world got back to honest money and sound finance. But it didn’t happen because the newly unleashed Fed fueled an incredible boom on Wall Street and a massive junk bond market in foreign loans.

In today economic scale, the latter amounted to upwards of $1.5 trillion and, in effect, kept the war boom in exports and capital spending going right up until 1929. Accordingly, the great collapse of 1929-1932 was not a mysterious failure of capitalism; it was the delayed liquidation of Wilson’s war boom.

After the crash, exports and capital spending plunged by 80% when the foreign junk bond binge ended in the face of massive defaults abroad; and that, in turn, led to a traumatic liquidation of industrial inventories and a collapse of credit fueled purchases of consumer durables like refrigerators and autos. Sales of the latter, for example, dropped from 5 million to 1.5 million autos per year after 1929.

Proposition # 8:  In short, the Great Depression was a unique historical event owing to the vast financial deformations of the Great War – deformations which were drastically exaggerated by its prolongation from Wilson’s intervention and the massive credit expansion unleashed by the Fed and Bank of England during and after the war.

Stated differently, the trauma of the 1930s was not the result of the inherent flaws or purported cyclical instabilities of free market capitalism; it was, instead, the delayed legacy of the financial carnage of the Great War and the failed 1920s efforts to restore the liberal order of sound money, open trade and unimpeded money and capital flows.

But this trauma was thoroughly misunderstood, and therefore did give rise to the curse of Keynesian economics and did unleash the politicians to meddle in virtually every aspect of economic life, culminating in the statist and crony capitalist dystopia that has emerged in this century.

And the worst of these consequent afflictions of governance, of course, was the Hitler-Stalin syndrome. It is the lynchpin upon which the Warfare State and the Washington Hegemon were erected, and it is baseless and malefic to the bone.

David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He’s the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution FailedThe Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America, TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin… And How to Bring It Back, and the recently released Great Money Bubble: Protect Yourself From The Coming Inflation Storm. He also is founder of