Beyond the Military-Industrial Complex

Greetings from sunny K Street, the Seat of Government here in the Economy of the United States of America. I see that an American who calls herself Dymphna, and who writes for a blog with the dangerously un-American title of "Gates of Vienna," has commented on my post of yesterday (We had to kill this republic to save it ...).

Clearly, Dymphna has neglected to enroll in a reeducation camp because she highlighted comments of a dangerous anarchist named Dwight Eisenhower. Mr Eisenhower somehow became a U.S. President when this country was a republic. As Dymphna pointed out, as he was leaving office he warned about what he termed America's "military-industrial complex:"

Eisenhower was wise to save that warning for his exit lines. But it was unfortunate he didn’t have the nerve to name the third party in this unholy trinity: our growing security complex – complex in both senses of that word.

If I understand her correctly Dymphna is implying that Americans are excessively anxious. I have a few points to make about such a dangerous observation:

First of all, according to data published in November 2011, only 1 in 5 Americans are taking anti-psychotic prescription medications including anti-anxiety medications. So while I don't have the precise breakdown, the data indicate we are a long way from market saturation in anti-anxiety medications. To in any way imply that American physicians, health insurance carriers and the pharmaceutical industry are not doing their part to support the U.S. economy is -- well, this is just why I am proposing legislation to make enrollment in reeducation camps mandatory.

Secondly, the military-industrial "complex" or nexus is a quaint artifact of the mid-20th Century. Eisenhower was talking about the industry in military hardware -- ships, bomber jets, and stuff. Today, if you can think it, we can industrialize it, and then we can sell it to the military.

This is how we fought the second phase of the Afghan War: Death by Power Point, Death by NGO, etc. Granted, we didn't win the war with this approach. But we won the only war that counts, which is beating out other nations in market share of ideas that can be weaponized then eventually sold for $59.99 at Walmart, or say, marketed to fools in "Arab Spring" countries who don't understand that concepts such as democracy and human rights can be weaponized and marketed to dissidents and NGOs. Hell, we've even weaponized protests against genocide.

Of course the tendency for human nature to weaponize everything it can wrap its mind around is not unique to Americans. And when you consider the extent to which religion has been weaponized throughout history, the tendency is probably as old as human conflicts. America's contribution to human progress in this area has been to apply modern business and economic principles to one of human nature's blips.

Thirdly, we in the Government of the Economy of the United States exist to keep Americans safe and secure. So for Dymphna to imply that Americans are unusually worried about danger is, well, subversive to Government and a danger to the American economy.

.