Tangents From The Consumer Culture
Wind power, electric cars, artificial intelligence, new safety gadgets on cars, robots, fusion electricity, on and on will not solve society's problems. They are marketing ploys to perpetuate the consumer culture. The Primer is not anti tech, it is not anti renewable energy, it is not anti AI. The fundamental flaw of our economic system is it is driven by making money for the owners and power for the electeds who look after the needs of big business at the expense of people and planet.
The Primer contends, unless American eco footprints become far smaller there will be no solution to many of today's most challenging problems. Social engineering that pushes the consumer culture will only make the deepening problems we are already familiar with worse.
Another enormous irony and conundrum. Over-consumption by the US drives much of the world's economy. Significantly reducing US and other affluent counties' consumption and eco footprints would put hundreds of millions of people all over the world out of work because those jobs depend on over-consumption. While the US needs to engage in paradigm shift, the rest of the world should do likewise. An accountable and effective redistribution of global wealth, unlikely of course, can address many of today's enormous problems.
Over-consumption - cars, suburbia, the consumer culture, is the money making fuel for America's economic and military power. The more one consumes, the more they contribute to geo political and eco logical stress. Economic activity produces not only products and services but also the revenue [plus a lot of borrowing] that pays much of the cost for what the government buys, from freeways to tanks.
Foreign Policy Doctrine 4
Here is our surprising tangent. Let's dig a bit deeper into US foreign policy doctrine. Foreign policy doctrine is basically the act of a nation expressing its interests and opinions to the wider world. For example, it did not take long after its independence for the United States to project its geo political positions beyond its own borders. Foreign policy is based on national security and its intimate companion, economic self interest.
America's geo political needs have changed over the past 250 years from from relatively simple turf protection to current needs for importing crude oil, pharmaceuticals, computers, cars and much more adding up to about $3.8 trillion dollars in 2023. The US exported slightly over $2 trillion dollars worth of goods and services in 2023. [That's an enormous trade deficit.]
If the insiders, tacticians and men of intellect want to maintain their benign and altruistic control of the US economic and political system, they need to have global reach to influence and safeguard global trade. If the average consuming American wants to maintain their cars, suburban homes, animal heavy food choices, fashion, flat screen TVs and much more and for it all to be cheap and affordable, global trade is required and so is their consent to the means needed to protect that access. The American Dream depends on enormous amounts of natural resources, products and energy from all over the world and a military to safeguard all those massive container ships and tankers.
Many of America's complex interactions with the wider world have been expressed by presidential doctrines going back 200 years. These doctrines show how America has been marking the geo political fire hydrant for two centuries. These doctrines help tell the story of America's over-consumption. The greater the needs, the greater the need to protect them. The greater the need to impose on the world order and that can lead to greater global stability or instability.
A presidential doctrine describes that president's key goals and geo political/economic positions. Doctrines can evolve and change over time but they do have a degree of consistency. These doctrines fit an updated version of the vision described by Bernays and his colleagues. Greater consumption calls for greater international reach to indulge that consumption. The insiders, the managers, thinkers and the men of character now operate within a global context. Here are the doctrines. A few of my own adjustments based on Wikipedia.
The Monroe Doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine, expressed in 1823, proclaimed the United States' position that European powers should no longer colonize the Americas or interfere with the affairs of sovereign nations located in the Americas, such as the United States, Mexico, Gran Colombia and others.
The Truman Doctrine
The 1947 Truman Doctrine was part of the United States' political response to perceived aggression by the Soviet Union in Europe and the Middle East, illustrated through the communist movements in Iran, Turkey and Greece at that time. Under the Truman Doctrine, the United States was prepared to send money, equipment, or military force to countries that were threatened by or resisting communism.
The Eisenhower Doctrine
The Eisenhower Doctrine was announced by President Eisenhower in a message to the US Congress on January 5, 1957. Under the Eisenhower Doctrine, a country could request American economic assistance and/or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression from another state. Eisenhower singled out the Soviet threat in his doctrine by authorizing the commitment of U.S. forces "to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international communism".
The Kennedy Doctrine
In his inaugural address on January 20, 1961, President Kennedy presented the American public with a blueprint upon which the future foreign policy initiatives of his administration would later follow and come to represent. In this address, Kennedy advised the world the US would oppose the advance of communism in the Western Hemisphere. His doctrine also expressed a concern about global poverty, tyranny and disease.
The Nixon Doctrine
The Nixon Doctrine, from 1969 focused on three items.
1] The US would honor all its treaty commitments
2] The US would provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with the US or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.
3] In cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.
The Carter Doctrine
The Carter Doctrine was articulated by President Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, when he stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interest in the Persian Gulf region. It was a warning to the USSR to stay away.
The Reagan Doctrine
From his 1985 State of the Union Address, Reagan declared, "We must not break faith with those who are risking their lives...on every continent, from Afghanistan to Nicaragua ... to defy Soviet aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth.
The Bush Doctrine
The Bush Doctrine declared that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed their acts and those who harbor them. This statement was made as a direct result of the Sept attack on the world trade center buildings.
Every nation has self interests. The wealthier and more powerful the nation, the more able and likely that nation will assert itself on the global stage. These US policy doctrines show the self interest of the US is at a global scale. This is the realm of a super power, the interests are economic above all and to push back on those who pose a threat to those interests. The Soviet Union was the primary adversary to US interests until its dissolution in the early 1990's. In recent years, Russia has significantly re occupied the role of the Soviet Union as a primary adversary to the US and the West and is now, joined by China, fast becoming a rival super power in its own right.
At this point, China and Russia share their concerns about the US and are moving towards greater cooperation while the US has its close allies in Europe along with Japan, South Korea and many other countries. Both factions rival each other for global influence. That rivalry becomes clearly visible in Ukraine and the South China Sea, among other places.
Ironically, the insiders and elites in every nation have an interest in stability to safeguard their own privilege and position. In many ways, the elites and tacticians of various countries have more in common with each other than their own fellow citizens. The elites competing with each other threaten that stability and privilege for all of those at the top of the pyramid.
A Short Look at the Military 5
The consumer culture and US foreign policy doctrine is back stopped by the military capacity, or force projection of the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Protecting those cars, tractor pulls and suburban homes is serious business. Here's a short look at US military assets.
As of 2021, the US has over 700 military positions of varying size in about 160 countries all over the world. The US military budget is about $800 billion a year, about as much as the next 10 national militaries combined. The US has over 170,000 troops at those positions and bases. Some installations may count only a handful of soldiers while Camp Humphreys in South Korea covers nearly three and a half thousand acres and boasts about 30,000 US soldiers. There are about 34,000 US troops in Germany, 12,000 in Italy, 1,600 in Turkey, over 2,000 in Kuwait.
Aircraft carriers are floating air bases and the flagships of battle groups made up of dozens of other ships. Aircraft carriers are perhaps the most iconic military navy vessel. Of the world's 27 fixed wing aircraft carriers, 11 are in the US Navy and they are, overall, by tonnage and fire power, substantially larger than the carriers of other countries. Most US carriers displace 100,000 tons while most other nations' carriers are half that size.
Many capable writers and researchers have penned volumes about US foreign policy and US military force projection, both critical and in support. The Primer does not need to duplicate those efforts but the Primer does offer a tangent of interest to this discussion and that is, what is the relationship between US foreign policy and its military in regard to the consumer culture, paradigm shift and permaculture.
Contact me Donate to the Primer
Wind power, electric cars, artificial intelligence, new safety gadgets on cars, robots, fusion electricity, on and on will not solve society's problems. They are marketing ploys to perpetuate the consumer culture. The Primer is not anti tech, it is not anti renewable energy, it is not anti AI. The fundamental flaw of our economic system is it is driven by making money for the owners and power for the electeds who look after the needs of big business at the expense of people and planet.
The Primer contends, unless American eco footprints become far smaller there will be no solution to many of today's most challenging problems. Social engineering that pushes the consumer culture will only make the deepening problems we are already familiar with worse.
Another enormous irony and conundrum. Over-consumption by the US drives much of the world's economy. Significantly reducing US and other affluent counties' consumption and eco footprints would put hundreds of millions of people all over the world out of work because those jobs depend on over-consumption. While the US needs to engage in paradigm shift, the rest of the world should do likewise. An accountable and effective redistribution of global wealth, unlikely of course, can address many of today's enormous problems.
Over-consumption - cars, suburbia, the consumer culture, is the money making fuel for America's economic and military power. The more one consumes, the more they contribute to geo political and eco logical stress. Economic activity produces not only products and services but also the revenue [plus a lot of borrowing] that pays much of the cost for what the government buys, from freeways to tanks.
Foreign Policy Doctrine 4
Here is our surprising tangent. Let's dig a bit deeper into US foreign policy doctrine. Foreign policy doctrine is basically the act of a nation expressing its interests and opinions to the wider world. For example, it did not take long after its independence for the United States to project its geo political positions beyond its own borders. Foreign policy is based on national security and its intimate companion, economic self interest.
America's geo political needs have changed over the past 250 years from from relatively simple turf protection to current needs for importing crude oil, pharmaceuticals, computers, cars and much more adding up to about $3.8 trillion dollars in 2023. The US exported slightly over $2 trillion dollars worth of goods and services in 2023. [That's an enormous trade deficit.]
If the insiders, tacticians and men of intellect want to maintain their benign and altruistic control of the US economic and political system, they need to have global reach to influence and safeguard global trade. If the average consuming American wants to maintain their cars, suburban homes, animal heavy food choices, fashion, flat screen TVs and much more and for it all to be cheap and affordable, global trade is required and so is their consent to the means needed to protect that access. The American Dream depends on enormous amounts of natural resources, products and energy from all over the world and a military to safeguard all those massive container ships and tankers.
Many of America's complex interactions with the wider world have been expressed by presidential doctrines going back 200 years. These doctrines show how America has been marking the geo political fire hydrant for two centuries. These doctrines help tell the story of America's over-consumption. The greater the needs, the greater the need to protect them. The greater the need to impose on the world order and that can lead to greater global stability or instability.
A presidential doctrine describes that president's key goals and geo political/economic positions. Doctrines can evolve and change over time but they do have a degree of consistency. These doctrines fit an updated version of the vision described by Bernays and his colleagues. Greater consumption calls for greater international reach to indulge that consumption. The insiders, the managers, thinkers and the men of character now operate within a global context. Here are the doctrines. A few of my own adjustments based on Wikipedia.
The Monroe Doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine, expressed in 1823, proclaimed the United States' position that European powers should no longer colonize the Americas or interfere with the affairs of sovereign nations located in the Americas, such as the United States, Mexico, Gran Colombia and others.
The Truman Doctrine
The 1947 Truman Doctrine was part of the United States' political response to perceived aggression by the Soviet Union in Europe and the Middle East, illustrated through the communist movements in Iran, Turkey and Greece at that time. Under the Truman Doctrine, the United States was prepared to send money, equipment, or military force to countries that were threatened by or resisting communism.
The Eisenhower Doctrine
The Eisenhower Doctrine was announced by President Eisenhower in a message to the US Congress on January 5, 1957. Under the Eisenhower Doctrine, a country could request American economic assistance and/or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression from another state. Eisenhower singled out the Soviet threat in his doctrine by authorizing the commitment of U.S. forces "to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international communism".
The Kennedy Doctrine
In his inaugural address on January 20, 1961, President Kennedy presented the American public with a blueprint upon which the future foreign policy initiatives of his administration would later follow and come to represent. In this address, Kennedy advised the world the US would oppose the advance of communism in the Western Hemisphere. His doctrine also expressed a concern about global poverty, tyranny and disease.
The Nixon Doctrine
The Nixon Doctrine, from 1969 focused on three items.
1] The US would honor all its treaty commitments
2] The US would provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with the US or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.
3] In cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.
The Carter Doctrine
The Carter Doctrine was articulated by President Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, when he stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interest in the Persian Gulf region. It was a warning to the USSR to stay away.
The Reagan Doctrine
From his 1985 State of the Union Address, Reagan declared, "We must not break faith with those who are risking their lives...on every continent, from Afghanistan to Nicaragua ... to defy Soviet aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth.
The Bush Doctrine
The Bush Doctrine declared that the U.S. would "make no distinction between the terrorists who committed their acts and those who harbor them. This statement was made as a direct result of the Sept attack on the world trade center buildings.
Every nation has self interests. The wealthier and more powerful the nation, the more able and likely that nation will assert itself on the global stage. These US policy doctrines show the self interest of the US is at a global scale. This is the realm of a super power, the interests are economic above all and to push back on those who pose a threat to those interests. The Soviet Union was the primary adversary to US interests until its dissolution in the early 1990's. In recent years, Russia has significantly re occupied the role of the Soviet Union as a primary adversary to the US and the West and is now, joined by China, fast becoming a rival super power in its own right.
At this point, China and Russia share their concerns about the US and are moving towards greater cooperation while the US has its close allies in Europe along with Japan, South Korea and many other countries. Both factions rival each other for global influence. That rivalry becomes clearly visible in Ukraine and the South China Sea, among other places.
Ironically, the insiders and elites in every nation have an interest in stability to safeguard their own privilege and position. In many ways, the elites and tacticians of various countries have more in common with each other than their own fellow citizens. The elites competing with each other threaten that stability and privilege for all of those at the top of the pyramid.
A Short Look at the Military 5
The consumer culture and US foreign policy doctrine is back stopped by the military capacity, or force projection of the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Protecting those cars, tractor pulls and suburban homes is serious business. Here's a short look at US military assets.
As of 2021, the US has over 700 military positions of varying size in about 160 countries all over the world. The US military budget is about $800 billion a year, about as much as the next 10 national militaries combined. The US has over 170,000 troops at those positions and bases. Some installations may count only a handful of soldiers while Camp Humphreys in South Korea covers nearly three and a half thousand acres and boasts about 30,000 US soldiers. There are about 34,000 US troops in Germany, 12,000 in Italy, 1,600 in Turkey, over 2,000 in Kuwait.
Aircraft carriers are floating air bases and the flagships of battle groups made up of dozens of other ships. Aircraft carriers are perhaps the most iconic military navy vessel. Of the world's 27 fixed wing aircraft carriers, 11 are in the US Navy and they are, overall, by tonnage and fire power, substantially larger than the carriers of other countries. Most US carriers displace 100,000 tons while most other nations' carriers are half that size.
Many capable writers and researchers have penned volumes about US foreign policy and US military force projection, both critical and in support. The Primer does not need to duplicate those efforts but the Primer does offer a tangent of interest to this discussion and that is, what is the relationship between US foreign policy and its military in regard to the consumer culture, paradigm shift and permaculture.
Contact me Donate to the Primer