Probing the Psyches of the Craven Americans

This essay is dedicated to my beloved Sarah who has been an unfailing infuence in the creation of it...

David Hume (1711-1776), Scottish philosopher, historian, economist and

essayist, is known for saying “Nothing is more surprising than the easiness
with which the many are governed by the few.” Further, in his A Treatise of
Human Nature (1738), DH deals with the concept of the “rightful ruler”
distinguishing his argumentation among the topics of long possession, present
possession, conquest, succession, and positive laws—naturally set in the
eighteenth century, his time, but stunningly pertinent for us during our times
of incertitude and hopes of achieving some sort of global unifcation through
peace and goodwill and not bullets and bombs. The following is a random
selection from Sections 7-12, where DH discusses his “system concerning the
laws of nature and nations,” extracted from A Treatise of Human Nature:

“...The frst of those principles I shall take notice of, as a foundation of the right of
magistracy, is that which gives authority to all the most established governments of the
world without exception: I mean, long possession in any one form of government, or
succession of princes. It is certain, that if we remount to the frst origin of every nation, we
shall fnd, that there scarce is any race of kings, or form of commonwealth, that is not
primarily founded on usurpation and rebellion, and whose title is not frst worse than
doubtful and uncertain. Time alone gives solidity to their right; and operating gradually on
the minds of men and women reconciles them to any authority, and makes it seem just and
reasonable. Nothing causes any sentiment to have a greater infuence upon us than custom,
or turns our imagination more strongly to any object. When we have been long accustomed
to obey any set of men, that general instinct or tendency, which we have to suppose a moral
obligation attending loyalty, takes easily this direction, and chooses that set of men for its
objects. It is interest which gives the particular direction.

And here it is observable, that the same length of time has a different infuence on our
sentiments of morality, according to its different infuence on the mind. We naturally judge
of every thing by comparison; and since in considering the fate of kingdoms and republics,
we embrace a long extent of time, a small duration has not in this case a like infuence on
our sentiments, as when we consider any other object. One thinks he or she acquires a
right to a horse, or a suit of clothes, in a very short time; but a country is scarce suffcient to
establish any new government, or remove all scruples in the minds of the subjects
concerning it. Add to this, that a shorter period of time will suffce to give a prince a title to
any additional power he may usurp, than will serve to fx it right, where the whole is an
usurpation. The kings of France have not been possessed of absolute power for above two
reigns; and yet nothing will appear more extravagant to Frenchmen and Frenchwomen
than to talk of their liberties. If we consider what has been said concerning accession, we
shall easily account for this phenomena.

When there is no form of government established by long possession, the present

possession is suffcient to supply its place, and may be regarded as the second source of all
public authority. Right to authority is nothing but the constant possession of authority,
maintained by the laws of society and the interests of mankind and womankind; and
nothing can be more natural than to join this constant possession to the present one,
according to the principles above-mentioned...No maxim is more conformable, both to
prudence and morals, than to submit quietly to the government, which we fnd established
in the country where we happen to live, without enquiring too curiously into its origin and
frst establishment. Few governments will bear being examined so rigorously. How many
kingdoms are there at present in the world, and how many more do we fnd in history,
whose governors have no better foundation for their authority than that of present
possession? To confne ourselves to the Roman and Grecian empires; is it not evident, that
the long succession of emperors, from the dissolution of the Roman liberty, to the fnal
extinction of that empire by the Turks, could not so much as pretend to any other title to
the empire?...It was by the sword, therefore, that every emperor acquired, as well as
defended his right; and we must either say, that all the known world, for so many ages, had
no government, and owed no allegiance to any one, or must allow, that the right of the
stronger, in public affairs, is to be received as legitimate, and authorized by morality, when
not opposed by any other title.

The right of conquest may be considered as a third source of the title of sovereigns. This
right resembles very much that of present possession; but has rather a superior force, being
seconded by the notions of glory and honour, which we ascribe to conquerers, instead of
the sentiments of hatred and detestation, which attend usurpers. Men naturally favour
those they love; and therefore are more apt to ascribe a right to successful violence, betwixt
one sovereign and another, than to the successful rebellion of a subject against his
sovereign...Those, therefore, who would seem to respect our free government, and yet deny
the right of resistance, have renounced all pretensions to common sense, and do not merit
a serious answer...Time and custom give authority to all forms of government, and all
successions of princes; and that power, which at frst was founded only on injustice and
violence, becomes in time legal and obligatory. Nor does the mind rest there; but returning
back upon its footsteps, transfers to their predecessors and ancestors that right, which it
naturally ascribes to the posterity, as being related together, and united in the
imagination...”

The DisUnited States of America, not yet 250 years old, is vying to be of a
“long possession,” but is burdened with being a relatively “present
possession!” (One Russian poet has described the DUS as being a comet: it
shines brilliantly but yet for only a short time.) The DUS has usurped
recognition of itself by succeeding in establishing its military-industrial
complex throughout the world installing military bases (hard power), 700-800,
and countless fast food and other non-military facilities (soft power) often with
the disdain of those they have imposed themselves upon. Not even Julius
Caesar could have imagined such an imperium, The Silent Empire, in his
most splendid reveries. How the DUS did so, can be observed in the post-
World War II geopolitical happenings when the DUS had the world foisted
upon its shoulders in a desperate attempt to recover a “worldly homeostasis”
after the relentless massacres perpetrated by the Nazis and the butchery the
Nazis inficted on the Soviet people whose sacrifce (30,000,000 casualties both
combatants and non-combatants) then, fnally, put to rest the Third Reich's
madness. What was the fedgling nation, at that time not even 200 years old, to
do? Its best was not nearly enough. The Korean War and the Vietnam “War”
would see the DUS deviate from any direction that perhaps might have been
founded on the principles of justice, peace, and human rights for all. Precepts,
natural laws, that, remember, had been talked about for centuries before by
philosophers and statesmen interested in creating a fner world for all of us.
Look, even, at the Constitution of the DUS. Many of its tenets are derived
from the wisdom of the ages. But Americans have abrogated these sagacious
doctrines over and over again. Embarrassingly enough, the DisUnited States
of America—as it is said so often—“dropped the ball.” Instead of taking hold
of a golden opportunity, it has aggravated most of the world with its
haughtiness (“Might is Right” and “Once you have them by their b***s, their
hearts and minds will follow”), threats of fnancial catastrophes, and, too
frequently the last resort, bombings. (The Americans are a wonderful people
—if they are not bombing you.) Mortifyingly, Americans are not genuine
usurpers. They are soft-witted usurpers! They think they can get away with
murder!!!

So where do we go from here? Firstly, we must shed a tear for the DUS. They
tried. They struggled to be the new “Caesars,” but failed miserably.
Imagine...these city-slickers (Robber Barons), these hillbillies (“You Ain't
Nothin' but a Hound Dog”), pretending that they might rule the world! They
had studied European history, had founded the DUS, in fact, with the gung-
ho spirit of the Europeans who for centuries had reaped havoc throughout the
world exploiting and massacring here and there. Is it not a testament to the
gross foolishness of the DUS that they established their “present possession”
on the beliefs and doctrines of European kings, queens, conquerers—and to
charge it up further with moral indignation and that might to be right—
succored up to the religions of the Old World all of them gracious instigators
of ethical codes favoring the use of young men, and women, as cannon
fodder? Why were not these American simpletons lucky enough to trip over
the sayings of, say, Confucius (“Man can make the Way great, and not that the
Way can make man great” or “He is a man of the golden rule, for, wishing to
establish his own character, he also establishes the character of others, and
wishing to be prominent himself, he also helps others to be prominent” or
“The man of wisdom cultivates humanity for its advantage.” Listen to what
one Chinese minister, Kuo, replied to his King, Hiu, in 662 BC—BEFORE
CHRIST! concerning the state: “When a state is about to rise, its ruler is
solemn, illustrious, sincere and correct. He is discriminating, pure, kind, and
affable...When the state is about to perish, its ruler is greedy, reckless,
depraved, and perverted. He is lewd, indolent, negligent, and lazy. He is
vulgar and cruel.” Why were the Americans so blockheaded as to accept the
dictates of Machiavelli, Clausewitz, Henry “The Carpet Bomber” Kissinger, St
Thomas Aquinas, Cardinal “The Warmonger” Spellman; and, so many other
pinheads who believe war is some kind of beneft that profts its citizens. And
the Americans can't even keep churches away from their governmental affairs!

Here is what Sun Tsu had to say about war: “To fght and conquer in all our
battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the
enemy's resistance without fghting” and “The supreme act of war is to subdue
the enemy without fghting” and “There is no instance of a nation beneftting
from prolonged warfare.” Don't tell that to the over-zealous generals in the
Pentagon!—especially those star-studded militarists who, embarrassed by the
disastrous exploits they were part of in the Vietnam fasco, now want to “make
it up” to Americans by showing how really good they are at killing other
people! Who knows how many hundreds of millions of the masses throughout
the world now fear the Americans because of their self-righteousness, rather
than respect them for their spirit of justice, good sense, and longings for
peace? Imagine how the people in Laos and Cambodia felt when more bombs
were dropped on them by the Americans than were dropped during World
War II!

I wish to quote from my The Hippie Lieutenant to explain, from a personal

standpoint, more convincingly the failure of the DUS's military infuence:
“John Wayne imbued in me the killer instinct. There is no doubt about it in my mind.
Watching his movies on the “Early Show;” “The Million Dollar Movie,” and “The Late
Show,” inoculated my disposition with the diseased germ of ducking bullets, tossing
handgrenades, running for cover, hitting the dirt, smelling for the enemy, anticipating the
attack with all fve senses keyed to war's main event and, fnally, offering the toast to
celebrate not so much the victory of battle, but to fete the end of the tension and danger
which accompany it.

When I was ten years old, I practiced war in Keansburg, New Jersey. My cousins and our
friends played at war during summer vacation. It was our favorite pastime next to stick-ball
playing on the macadamized roadway in front of my aunt and uncles's gray-shingled
summer bungalow. We fought in the “jungles” of neighboring sandy lots, we took hills of
sand piled high by the wind, we mowed down the “enemy” and assigned his sudden fate
with a “You're dead!!!” scream, and when the battle was over, we slugged down gulps of
water from our Army-Navy-store-issued aluminum canteens. We “played war.” And war is
hell. It was hell in Keansburg as it was hell in the Solomons and Iowa Jima and Paris and
Dunkirk and Pearl Harbor. And it remained hell in Pleiku and Dak To and Duc Pho and
Kontum and the Ia Drang Valley. I had performed in a war-like manner for many years of
my life before I would have my own real war to fght in. And when it came, I was
emotionally prepared. I was ready. Years of psychic stimulation had put me in top-notch
form. It would take the United States Army to add the necessary accruements of materiel
that would mold me into a fghting, combat-ready soldier...After a short time in Vietnam I
was to fnd out that “romanticism” in war is an obsolete advantage. The atomic bomb had
made any fght, battle, contact, engagement, encounter or war a futile endeavor. One
cannot feel achievement of mastery or success in a struggle against odds or diffculties
when the outcome one contributes to is mediocre. And any military victory, when
compared to the totally devastating effect of that mushroom-shaped cloud, is of no
consequence whatsoever. This is one fact of modern military philosophy that was
understood better in Vietnam by the illiterate private from the green hills of Tennessee,
than it was comprehended by the most sophisticated swivel-chair, high-ranking offcials
from the Army's Staff College and the war closets of the nation's battle-planning executive
offces in the Pentagon.”

Further: I do not believe thousands upon thousands of atom bombs exist. I

even trust that at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviets would not
have risked sending nuclear-loaded missiles, over the turbulent high seas, to
Cuba. The hazard of an accident occurring would have been too considerable
to even think of attempting such a venture. I think this also because I served
in a rocket-missile training battalion at Fort sill, Oklahoma, and I never saw a
nuclear warhead that I would have been instructed to locate and then, with
the utmost attention, place in the head of a rocket or missile. Where were
they? In addition, when I was assigned to Vietnam I thought that my military
MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) 1193, would qualify me to serve with
an undercover rocket-missile unit. Instead, I was sent to the jungle as a
forward observer supporting an infantry company with feld artillery (old-
fashioned cannons) fre power.

Ho Chi Minh said that the atom bomb is a paper tiger. And if Kim Jong-un
possesses the atomic bomb, why does he need such an extensive array of tanks
and mechanized armament? Just in case? Just in case he is bluffng?

Talking about the atom bomb, atom bombs, one is readily reminded of others'
belief in a god. So many say they believe in them, but no one ever sees them!
I also believe most people do not believe in a god, but say they do—just to be
safe! (Just in case!) There are an estimated 4,000 religions in the world—all of
them headed by a he-god, capitalized He, and never a she-god capitalized She.
If an atom bomb was attributed with god-like characteristics (it has its
adherents, it would condemn all to a fery Hell, no heaven or hell to quibble
over with an atom bomb) it would be capitalized with an “It” respecting
gender identity unlike religions that strictly refer to their supreme beings with
a “He,” but never a “She.” A He or a She supreme being will give us the
choice of going to heaven—if we are good—or going to hell—if we are bad. An
It would just burn everyone to a crisp without offering the choice of going to
heaven or hell.

And how many atom bombs would it take to obliterate the world? Are there
enough of them? How could they all be set off at the same time to counter
some nuclear attack? How long would it take to assess the damage of a nuclear
attack before it could be decided on how to retaliate? This is crazy complex
stuff that even the dummies in the Pentagon will never be able to fgure out.

So, what's all this fuss about? It's about economic warfare. Yes, the way to
“fght” today is with stocks, bonds, and currency exchanges that bring more
havoc to people's lives than nuclear war would or could. If we are burnt to
ashes in a nuclear attack, there will be no sense to check one's investments
with some daffy fnancial adviser. Annihilation is that what no one wants, even
if it might toast your neighbor who is always asking to borrow something, or
your invasive mother-in-law, or that IRS agent who fned you last year after
threatening you with ten years in solitary confnement. Anything is better than
being scorched to death after the explosion of a mushroom-shaped cloud.
According to www.thebalance.com: “China owns a third of the US debt. The
US allowed China (its civilization dates back 4000 years!) to become one of its
biggest bankers to achieve low consumer prices for its people. Selling debt to
China funds federal programs that allow the US economy to grow. China
wants the yuan to replace the US dollar as the world's global currency.”
Again, Sun Tsu: “Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.” Who can
think of a better stooge for the Chinese and Russians than Donald Trump?
The Chinese are overheating the DUS economy waiting for it to melt down,
the Russians are blackmailing Trump, and the Americans are oinking for
more plastic at the cheapest price!

Will someone please tell me why Martin Jacques, journalist, academic and
visiting research fellow at the London School of Economics Asia Research
Centre, would have written a book, When China Rules the World: The Rise of the
Middle Kingdom and the End of the Western World?

Authored by Anthony St. John

1 January MMXVIII
Calenzano, Italy
www.scribd.com/thewordwarrior
Twitter: @thewordwarrior

* * *