Est Ad Bellum
Introducing WarCouncil.substack
Est Ad Bellum
Ad Bellum, the path to war was forged long time ago.
In the tumultuous landscape of social media, the proverbial battle lines between left and right have been drawn with a clarity and ferocity that reflect deeper historical currents and ideological divides. As an observer and commentator on these dynamics, I have been influenced significantly by figures like Jimmy Dore, whose distinct perspective offers a window into the fracturing of the American left.
This divide is not merely ideological but also methodological, separating those who adopt academic rigor from those who embrace a more unbridled approach to political engagement. In this milieu, the propagandist thrives, characterized by a certain type of loyalty: stubborn persistence for some, a staunch defense of intellectual theses for others, and for the few, a courageous stand in the face of likely defeat.
Yet, what both the self-aware commentator and the satirical comedian share is a capacity not to take themselves too seriously—a willingness to remain open to new ideas and adapt within an ever-evolving socio-political environment. This does not imply an abandonment of core beliefs or scholarly rigor, but rather an adaptive approach that accommodates new information and perspectives.
However, despite glaring missteps, certain individuals retreat into the welcoming arms of lucrative, conservative platforms. Echoes of an older Republican ethos persist—one that predates Reagan's transformative influence. These individuals, often masquerading under liberal banners, are in reality adherents to a form of liberalism that blends mild social progressivism with an unwavering commitment to market capitalism.
Their loyalty is not to a set of ideological principles but to the personal gains their careers afford them. They are products of their environment, shaped by experiences and rewards that reinforce their paths—akin to characters in a meticulously crafted simulation, unaware of their roles in a fabricated reality.
The intellectual foundations of their beliefs are often not the result of organic intellectual curiosity but are instead implanted through an educational system tailored to propagate specific economic doctrines. The neoliberal agenda, championed by figures like Reagan and intellectually underpinned by economists such as Hayek and Friedman, was seeded into the minds of young students positioned to perpetuate these ideas.
These academic systems, often failing to deliver genuine educational value, nonetheless succeed in maintaining control over the credentialing process. Whether one graduates as a Keynesian economist or an expert in an obscure field, the value of the diploma is dictated less by its content and more by its marketability and the prestige of the issuing institution.
What has been most egregiously commandeered in this process is the very term "progressive." Influential figures have co-opted this label, reshaping historical narratives and defining what and who should be considered as champions of progress. In their manipulated spectrum, anyone falling outside their prescribed ideological boundaries is conveniently labeled "right-wing."
In this ongoing cultural skirmish, played out across social media platforms, the stakes are not just ideological but existential, questioning the very nature of truth, history, and progress.
In all seriousness, the United States is currently the weakest link among all "free-market capitalist" nations, including G20 countries, for instance, due to its low life expectancy for people born after the 1970s. Unlike nations with social democracies that have successfully cultivated social segmentation and class consciousness after offering minimal concessions to the lower classes, the U.S. has not resolved conditions for mass social upheaval. America maintains the same medical doctor quota as the more segregated South Korea, faces unchecked pharmaceutical prices like countries with public healthcare, and suffers from undertrained healthcare professionals similar to those in nations with preventative health schemes. The lack of patients due to cost reasons is as deadly as in those countries with low population density where training often comes from study trips to India or China. Surprisingly, Japanese visitors to the social democracy haven of Sweden found that their family physicians and walk-in clinics often google symptoms before making a diagnosis, due to insufficient medical training.
After removing the common denominator from the public agenda, the social democracies can further pacify the voters and divert their focus to trivial matters. They pay little attention to the subjects that truly matter, such as war. And only war is truly important to existentialism.
The American celebrity-driven media, even the independent media, rarely interviews the true talent—frontline workers in weapon manufacture, forward operations, and engineers. The hollowing out of the industrial base and manufacturing extends beyond the Rust Belt; a generation that grew up distanced from the production process has removed the entire thought process and memory bank from society.
This is why "Est Ad Bellum" for the war council blog is important.
This could bring a special experience for those uninterested in war, especially those lacking military-industrial experience.
On this Substack, it's essential to dissect the foundational misunderstandings prevalent among those who critique the "military-industrial-lobbying complex" without a genuine grasp of its components. Many detractors lack a fundamental understanding of military might, the operations of an industrial plant, and the attributes of a sound military industry. Their protestations, lacking depth, inadvertently uphold the very framework they oppose, lubricating the gears of a system fraught with contradictions.
Not trying to praise the entrepreneur worship like the Neo Liberals, but it’s important to understand the MIC (Military-Industrial-Lobbying Complex) is not that powerful at all, they are lanterns of Anglerfish, the small heads of a much larger Hydra.
Consider this: criticism from the right regarding the Military-Industrial-Lobbying Complex often stems not from its inherent power but from its glaring deficiencies. Since the 1990s, the United States has been plagued by a lack of advanced military technologies like supersonic missiles and adequate infantry carriers. This technological shortfall is not merely an oversight but a symptom of deeper systemic issues: cost-cutting, price raising, unchecked mergers, and adverse competition. Gresham's law, when the market is shrinking, management is more important than engineering.
The period of relative peace following the Berlin Wall's fall further catalyzed the transition toward a defense sector dominated by Wall Street interests, morphing what should have been a robust defense industry into a conglomerate of profit-driven enterprises more akin to manufacturers of peashooters than purveyors of national security. The CEOs at the helm of these companies, more akin to bankers than the pioneering engineers of yore like Alexander Kartveli or Robert L. Gross, prioritize financial metrics over the advancement of engineering innovation. Their expertise lies not in crafting groundbreaking technological marvels but in minimizing costs and maximizing prices. Consequently, firms that prioritized genuine quality and innovation found themselves outmaneuvered and financially unsustainable in the post-Cold War economic environment.
When the time of war has come, all social democracies and their followers have shown their darker side.
Can you imagine how naïve those hosts are?
The provide emotional value so you can go back to work pacified and happy.
If you like this, please subscribe to this blog or the other.
