Unorthodox Support for Veterans Benefits

War: What is it good for?

War is a racket. You don’t need to take my word for it. The greatest warfighters in our nation’s history ultimately came to recognize this truth. Former Seal Team Six Senior Chief Chris Beck explains the history of war profiteering from the time of the Napoleonic wars in 60 seconds here. After a 34 year career in the Marine Corps during which he earned the Medal of Honor on two separate occasions, Smedley Butler wrote a book entitled “War Is A Racket” to try to explain this truth to the American people in 1935. After leading America to victory in Europe over Nazi Germany and holding our nations highest office, Ike Eisenhower warned the American people to beware the potential for a disastrous rise of misplaced power inherent to the military industrial complex. By heroically refusing to sign off on the plan to use false flag attacks¹ to justify war with Cuba, Eisenhower’s successor John F. Kennedy seemed to have taken this warning to heart. Unfortunately this nascent power had an ally in then Vice President Lyndon Johnson who would use another false flag to launch the Vietnam War shortly after he worked with the CIA to orchestrate JFK’s assassination.

As American Presidents have come and gone the wars we have fought have not been primarily motivated by a desire to support and defend the constitution against foreign enemies. Don’t get me wrong, plenty of important people definitely tell themselves that, or at least once did. Many even believed it, especially at the time. These days, though, the Constitution has been substituted for the “international rules-based order” also known as Globalist American Empire (GAE) hegemony. At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter what narrative people use to justify war. With the benefit of hindsight we can look at all of our major conflicts since the American Revolutionary War and see that the narratives used to sell these conflicts to the people never really lined up with reality all that well. Even those wars with the strongest narratives (American Civil War and WWII IMO) weren’t fought for the reasons the conventional narrative would have us believe. Lincoln had no desire to end slavery at the start of the Civil War, and FDR had no knowledge of Hitler’s “final solution” as he maneuvered to provoke the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. As I have admitted previously, though, sometimes parasites can benefit the host.² In this case I very much consider the abolition of slavery in the U.S. and the Allied occupation putting an end to the Holocaust to be wonderful, but largely unanticipated benefits.

The idea that government has, or is even able to, fight a war in the interests of its people in the modern era might well be a delusion. I have suffered from this delusion as have many of my brothers and sisters in arms. Many still do. How can this be possible? With clear and obvious evidence that U.S. adventures abroad from Vietnam to Afghanistan have been fought in vain, how are some still able to tell themselves that our government can limit military intervention to those situations with a genuine nexus to national security? The short answer is that our psyches evolved very specifically to perform this exact trick. We are all self-interested. The narratives used to justify our pursuit of self-interest vary widely though. Often these narratives are entirely delusional. In fact, in the late stage bureaucracy of the modern West, employing self-delusion has become quite the dominant strategy. Lorenzo Warby explains this phenomenon well in his current series, especially in his latest article:

Choosing pseudo-realities

The reason I’ve outlined this perspective is to drive home the point that war does serve a purpose. It serves the self-interest of some at the expense of others. This isn’t something that regime affiliates benefit from being honest and reflective about. If you’re a war profiteer and you know it, that just isn’t a good look. If neocons can actually believe that they’re trying to spread freedom to the middle east while raking in huge sums of cash and promoting GAE hegemony, then that is what they’ll do. If warfighters can believe that they’re in Afghanistan in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks or in Iraq to topple a brutal dictator instead of in pursuit of status, prestige, and benefits, then they will. For many, the realities they observed on the ground cut through the delusional narratives like an M240B cuts through unarmed civilians. Still, some were able to maintain their delusions as the Iraq WMD lie unfolded and the Afghan war dragged on for decades after Osama bin Laden fled to Pakistan. Most finally gave it up in the wake of the botched Afghanistan withdrawal. Billions in military hardware given to the Taliban, 13 dead Marines, and an innocent family slain by a drone strike culminated to show this generation of warriors what their sacrifices were worth.

Self-Delusion Has Become Unaffordable for GWOT Veterans

Self-delusion is no longer in the self-interest of most GWOT veterans. To maintain such delusion in the face of such overwhelming evidence would cause too much cognitive dissonance to break even. Some in the professional class keep their mouths shut to keep the cash flowing from their government sponsored sinecures, but most of them know the score. This presents a problem for the regime. These warriors have credibility. They know what has happened over the past 20 years, and they know that what is happening right now in Europe probably isn’t any different. Perhaps more importantly, these veterans have earned benefits that insulate them to varying extents from the churn inherent to the great reset. If you don’t have to pay property taxes and have a disability and retirement check coming in, then you are very difficult to cancel. I’m concerned that credible and resourceful opponents of the regime won’t be tolerated for much longer.

On the other hand, self-delusion has never been more lucrative for regime apparatchiks. With respect to veterans, this delusion goes something like this: They don’t deserve those benefits, especially if they make more than me. They’re violent extremists. They’re racist, misogynist, homophobic, and trans-phobic. They’re gun toting bible thumpers who can’t understand that if we don’t take immediate action, the entire world is going to burn up in a climate apocalypse. So what do people who have convinced themselves of such things do with such beliefs? They prioritize the disenfranchisement of these dangerous political enemies. Capitol Police Lieutenant Michael Byrd and those who support his unconstitutional³ slaying of Ashley Babbitt really do believe that he saved lives by shooting an unarmed veteran in the neck.

The Congressional Budget Office always makes proposals about how to reduce the deficit. They had a new idea this year though, and one that speaks to this bias. They have identified that many billions can be saved by means testing veterans. That is to say, the veterans who are the most successful and capable of mounting effective political opposition to the regime can be found to not require some portion of their benefits if they’re doing well for themselves. Now, getting rid of mandatory spending is something that will ultimately happen. These unfunded liabilities will be defaulted upon willingly, or via the cumulative effects of runaway inflation. Until that happens, though, I suspect the regime sees opportunity. Inflation allows for targeted punishment of political opposition in ways that can be easily masked by self-delusion in service of self-interest. I anticipate that veterans will be a primary target for this going forward.

The Reflexive Reaction

The reaction to this of the typical veteran will be something to the effect of “no fair.” This is true. It isn’t fair. The politicians made promises that their successors can’t keep. What makes the plight of veterans more worthy of consideration than those who are currently paying into social security who will never see a dime of that ‘investment’ back? The sacrifices inherent to military service do come to mind. But what were those sacrifices for? Were they for the American people, or for the enrichment of regime apparatchiks? At this point it is clear to me that it was for the latter. But what of intent? The veteran volunteered to serve to support and defend the constitution and the people of the United States! Perhaps, but don’t parents who allow their children to be surgically and chemically altered do it for all the best reasons as well? Do they not also sacrifice by obviating any potential for grandchildren in some of these circumstances? What are admirable intentions worth as the empire crumbles around us and delusion reigns?

Accepting Responsibility and Forging Ahead

I argue that we can’t expect compensation for mere admirable intentions. That said, such intentions and a previous demonstration of physical and moral courage are noteworthy. I don’t see veterans benefits as a way for the government to keep promises to veterans. That is a self-serving, delusional narrative for veterans to attempt to promote by itself. The government doesn’t keep promises, it uses violence and the threat thereof to empower some to the detriment of others. This is perhaps uncomfortable to admit, but I haven’t seen a persuasive case made demonstrating otherwise. Veterans all played a part in this process, and many have seen the suffering caused by this apparatus first hand. It is the combination of this knowledge, physical and moral courage, and resourcefulness that makes veterans a threat to the regime. Those politicians that aim to overturn the current regime and circulate the elites could do worse than to align themselves closely with these veterans. The politicians that provided vocal support to military members in the covax mandate context may have already recognized this.

Payment for Service to the American People

I believe prioritizing veterans benefits over other unfunded liabilities can be justified. I don’t think prior service is enough, though. To justify such a prioritization to an American public that mostly understands the GWOT was a complete waste of blood and treasure, something more is needed. Current and future service to the American people in opposition to a regime bent on achieving a neoserfdom where perception and reality are permanently severed fits the bill in my estimation. If you’re an American taxpayer rightly skeptical of war please consider that this demographic is disproportionately likely to use this funding towards ends that you likely support. The regime does this kind of thing constantly, why can we not do the same? At least in this context a promise was made. Fulfilling that promise isn’t exactly the same as letting tens of millions of people enter the country illegally just because you think they’ll vote for whatever party provides the most handouts in the form of social welfare. The regime has made a lot of promises to a lot of people. Most if not all of these promises will ultimately be broken. If veterans want to retain the fruits of the promises made to them at the expense of beneficiaries of other entitlement programs then they might need to do a little more to serve the American people. I believe the best way that they can do that is to take on a challenges they are uniquely suited for. One of these challenges is advancing the cause of political populism.

1. I’m referring, of course, to Operation Northwoods

2. It is how I justify my current job, after all. It is possible that I am delusional.

3. 4th amendment violation