[1/23/25: I wrote this letter in May, 2023, but did not post it. It seems relevant now, after my conversation with President Trump, recounted in the next post, referencing the Military Media Industrial Complex.]
Dear Military Industrial Complex,
I write you today to suggest the addition of the word "media" to your name.
To recap your history: U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower (who during World War II served as Supreme Commander of allied forces in Europe), in his well known farewell speech on January 17, 1961 at the end of two terms, identified the "threat" of what he called America's "military industrial complex," which, as a result of the nation's response to the recent war, had grown so much that "...it bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime." Eisenhower continued: "We have been compelled to create a permanent arms industry of vast proportions...This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience...The total influence, economic, political, even spiritual, is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government...We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications...We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, of the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power persists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals."
Eisenhower's warning was not repeated by any subsequent U.S. president.
You can listen to American network news for years and never hear the phrase "military industrial complex." They will not report it. Thus I add the term "media" to revise Eisenhower's formulation to "military media industrial complex," or MMIC.
By "media" I refer to the traditional networks, ABC, NBC and CBS, because the cable and streaming stations tend to be identified as left or right leaning. The network news does not seek identification with ideologies like left and right (many younger viewers who should appreciate this non-affiliation are turned off by the commercials for dental cream), but it caters to a more subtle bias, at least in its coverage of war-and-peace issues. A prime example is coverage of the Russia/Ukraine war. We're told every night that Ukraine is the good guy, to such an extent that we should support it all the way to the brink of nuclear war. This is not a defense of Russia. The point is that we only see one side, and seeing only one side promotes public acceptance of the billions of dollars going to the military part of the complex, from there to our "representative" government, and from there to the media.
Anyway, Dear MMIC, I want you to know that I am aware that you are going to win. We should have anticipated your endurance and cunning when the Vietnam war lasted 5 years beyond the most intense protest, stopping only when the U.S. lost the war. At that point, in MMIC thinking, the profits from arms sales had more than justified the political expense of losing the war (which happened when the North took over the whole country- the opposite of the stated U.S. objective) especially with a compliant media presenting this outcome as chaos, not as a lost war. Ditto for Afghanistan. [Update, 1/23/25: At this point in the Middle East it is unclear who is winning or losing; all that is clear is that war is continuing].
It also seems clear that "hippies," or the "left," or "liberals," or the "woke," or these days (in terms of resisting U.S. involvement in the Russia/Ukraine War) "conservatives," or whatever other non-descriptive terms we come up with for people who might think humans should evolve beyond constant war, have not and do not have a clue how to fight you. Their primary actions have been to write and say (or shout) critical words in the mistaken belief that these words would cause you, the MMIC, more than a slight irritation.
Speaking of ineffectual words, I've had a change of heart about political parties. Previously, this blog advocated for a new party, an alternative to Republicans and Democrats, that would address the mad rush of science to re-write our brains and bodies while we're distracted by war. This new party would identify and champion impressive and intriguing elements of the previous human model (i.e. us) and work to ensure that we will be able to control, somewhat, the changes racing towards us.
My current view is that a new party would not do any good because you, the MMIC, have the party system locked up and would call the shots. Your monitoring of human psychology, in which you assess our gene pool's murderous components- components also found in the gene pool of our closest genetic relative, chimpanzees, that cause the perpetual warfare typical of that species, including, when stimulated, mindless fury and sadistic longing for destruction of enemies- gives you the ability to tap into that genetic potential to maximize corporate profits and control your fellow humans. You are the ultimate chimpanzee.
As such, you will rewrite the current world into dystopian sci-fi. There will be mass dislocation and turmoil, blamed on countries or groups you designate as enemies, but throughout its course the turmoil will make huge profits for the industries of your complex. The buy-in from media will ensure that no one suspects that you wanted the chaos all along, just as no one now suspects that the lack of ability to address current challenges, like out-of-control gun use or carbon emissions or abortion, which roll on and on with no hope of resolution, is supported by your inner cynicism whose vision holds that it's all going to collapse and be replaced anyway so why fix it? No new political party is going to be able to do anything about this.
Over time, you, the MMIC, will ally with similar coalitions around the globe to control the whole show. Then whatever you want, whether a fiat that everyone eat Doritos once a day, or that the human cerebral cortex be switched off at birth to facilitate subservience to AI's- whatever you want, it will be yours. Nothing in politics will stop you. As the coming mess we call the 2024 U.S. national election makes its nature clear, the last hope for a resurgence of human pride and influence, at least as expressed through political parties, is fading fast.
If parties don't have the strength to represent creative alternatives, how about a foundation, something like the one in Isaac Asimov's novel of that name? In Asimov's vision, the "Foundation" is essentially an advisory body with a mandate to consider human evolution, but it has a stature and influence beyond what voices outside of parties have today. If we come up with a concept for such a body, we will need to consider what forces and means would be capable of establishing it.
