Perpetual war

Instead, it advocates for a foundational state of permanent preventive war.

So they take American money, utilize American political loopholes, and their grand strategy is to abandon American values in favor of permanent war?

Yep.

Is the American public finally catching on to this? Because, I mean, you can only drain a local constituency for a foreign power for so long before the dam breaks.

We broke down the mechanics of a 1963 legal loophole that allowed a lobbying empire to bypass the U.S. Justice Department and bundle domestic money for a foreign state.

And we tallied the receipts, trillions of taxpayer dollars, endless military entanglement and a compromised domestic political system.

All to fund an ally that is now openly mapping out a strategy of permanent war while planning to abandon American democratic values.

It is a breathtaking web of mechanical influence.

Right.

So he said no more forever wars.

He didn't say no more wars.

He was using the historical reference to what happened with Iraq, Afghanistan, these things that we had to extract ourselves from for decades.

66% say finish the job.

I think those people that are asking that question are right.

Is Donald Trump, because he is an opponent of forever wars... presented with information, some of which we have no idea what has been presented to him, but given his decision-making, I believe.

Charlie Kirk said this well.

A country that explicitly says that its policy is to destabilize the entire region.

Is the policy of Israel one of perpetual war?

Peace is

not an end, but little peace, P-E-A-C-E here, little peace there, is a means to more war.

So you, you've had a certain shape to the world since that time, and the shape is where the British imperial elites have largely consolidated their control over the world through two sets of policies.

The one is what Barbara just described: perpetual war with a particular, uh, focus, again, in the post-Soviet world against Russia.

But the other main complex of institutions that they use to exert their control over the world was the central banks and the international institutions around the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

That became like the central banker's bank for the world, focused against the chance that any, any, any new part of the world would ever have the opportunity to develop.

Anyway, they were reading a teleprompter.

Instead of World War II, they said World War 11, because what would they know? Um, look, we don't need a moratorium on war.

We need a moratorium on perpetual war.

Um, and I think that's what this administration is doing.

He rejected a request from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to, uh, do just that, enter the war against the Houthis with airstrikes last month, and that was, in some respects, kind of a humiliating passage in this entire relationship between the United States and its allies in the region.

If the president were to jump in at this point in time, obviously only weeks away from midterm elections, he does risk reinforcing Americans' concerns about not just the extent to which we're in another forever war, but also the impact on their pocketbooks in terms of gasoline prices.

And that's not an optic that the president, I suspect, would like to have.

But at this point in time, given the death toll, given the persistence now of over a week of strikes, uh, that have hit civilian air traffic in Saudi Arabia, I would not be surprised if, in fact, the United States did take action at this time.

And now we're dealing with the failure once again in the Middle East of an American administration to go into a war without a clear exit plan.

That has obviously, you know, had a huge impact on the American people.

They're tired of these forever wars in the region.

And President Trump, in some respects, was prescient in his early campaigns in highlighting that issue, the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan for Americans, both in terms of our economy and in terms of human life.

It's, it's a protection racket.

Um, you want some forever wars that never stop.

Um, and then if you can, you have to compensate the FIC by if they ever want peace, you know, they, they need a new home.

So if you say, if the MIC, if the FIC says, "We're gonna build, like, global financial centers, and we benefit from regional stability in the Middle East, the forever war is over," uh, then MIC will say, "Well, what are you gonna give us?" Um, and so at that point you get covert operations to ensure that NATO, who are effectively the front company for profiting from wars, you make Europe increase-

Pacifism is therefore collusion with the enemy.

Pacifism is bad because life is a permanent war.

But as Echo goes on, this, however, brings with it an Armageddon complex.

Since the enemy can and must be defeated, there must be a last battle, after which the movement will rule the world.

Such a final solution implies a subsequent era of peace, a golden age that contradicts the principle of permanent war.

But no fascist leader has ever managed to resolve this contradiction.

What Echo concludes in paragraph 11 is this cult of heroism, which makes everyone in the culture a hero.