Connect with us


Creating a Future: Nationalism, Patriotism and Global “Oneness”



“What does not benefit the entire hive is no benefit to the bee.”-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Sometimes, truth can be both counter-intuitive and bitterly ironic.  Although Americans have long been instructed that patriotism is a proper sentiment of national superiority, of  always “being the best,” such reasoning quickly dissolves in the face of  cold logic. In the end, what we might ordinarily consider as decent patriotism can still undermine the nation’s core national interests.

 Inevitably, if simply left in place, the cumulative global effect of any such considerations will prove injurious to all nations.

Perhaps even starkly injurious.

In the worst case, these injuries may extend to one form or another of catastrophic war.

These two questions arise:

(1) What correct policy inferences should be drawn by America’s leaders in Washington DC?

(2) What conspicuously valid conclusions should we expect will be reached?

To respond, it must first become increasingly obvious that so many apparent benefits of traditionally-defined patriotism are actually harmful and sorely unpatriotic. Because the combined result of individual nation-state judgments that conflate belligerent nationalism with patriotism weakens all nation-states, it is high time for the Trump White House to think more analytically about “America First.” The particular policy objectives coalescing around this falsifying mantra must become more serious than just eliciting mindless cheers at political “rallies.”

As a start, US President Trump and his senior national security counselors could be reminded purposefully that history is actually worth studying. Accordingly, they could learn, classical Greek and Macedonian war postures were self-consciously based upon sound intellectual and theoretical foundations.[1]

More succinctly, such ancient postures were founded upon determinedly calculable struggles of “mind over mind.” To be sure, whatever else their varying deficiencies, they were not crafted from the corrosively visceral chants of an unthinking “amen chorus,” what the Greeks themselves would have called the hoi polloi.

Over the years, though not always followed, such enviable “mind-over-mind” orientations have provided an overlooked but perpetually-prudent model of national security planning.[2] Nonetheless, across almost the entire globe, national military planning remains narrowly focused upon limited correlations of individual force structure and on elements of a wrongly-presumed national interest. This dissembling focus is especially obvious today in Washington DC, in both Congress and the White House, where  insufficiently serious thought is being directed toward systematizing long-term American security obligations.

Significantly, before improved thought could reasonably be expected,[3] America’s national security policy planners would first need to become more attentive to variously complex policy intersections and interdependencies, including what are formally called “synergies.”[4] In any true synergistic interaction, the policy behaviors of rival states could produce outcomes that are tangibly “more” than the simple sum of their parts. A timely example here might be prospective US-North Korean policies of crisis escalation, policies in which one side or the other (or both) would mistake the other’s moves and where the result could be much worse than any simple arithmetic summation could have predicted.

Looking ahead to still-plausible crises between Washington and Pyongyang, each side (assuming basic and bilateral rationality) will be seeking to achieve “escalation dominance” and, simultaneously, to maintain national survival.[5]

If follows from all this, whatever one’s prior political inclinations or affiliations,  that US President Trump’s “America First” foreign policies are inherently unpatriotic and destined to fail.[6]

And it is all unambiguous.

Years earlier, Sigmund Freud, while not directly concerned with the dynamics of world politics or international relations, examined similar issues at the microcosmic or “molecular” level, that is, at the critical level of individual human beings. Looking over such psychologically focused examinations, Freud’s rudimentary conceptual understanding – that unfettered “liberty” among individual human beings must invariably lead to uselessly antagonistic or “zero-sum” social conflicts – applies equally to  nation-states. If left alone to pursue their collective lives “patriotically”- that is, within the anarchic global state-of-nature that seventeenth century political philosopher Thomas Hobbes had famously and accurately called a “war of all against all”[7] – the separate state actors would be forced to endure the conditions of  permanent war.

 Under no conceivable circumstances could such conditions prove tolerable.

Moreover, amid any such continuously ferocious global anarchy – a structure of disorder originally bequeathed at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 – there could never arise any meaningful forms of civilization.


Notwithstanding the bitterly anti-intellectual stance of the current American president, history and learning do have an indispensable place in the United States. Recalling Thomas Hobbes Leviathan (1651, chapter XIII), the life of any states attempting to chase after narrowly nationalistic/populist goals (what Donald Trump would today call “America First”) must be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”[8] Going forward, it is even plausible that the traditional anarchy in world politics dating back to the end of the Thirty Years War in 1648 has begun to morph into a more far-reaching and irremediable chaos.

In this connection, it is now even worth repeating, there would exist principal and palpable connections between traditional zero-sum notions of patriotism and what is now called “populism.”

But how do we actually fix a global system founded upon and sustained by such thoroughly erroneous notions of patriotism? How should well-intentioned states (including especially the United States) plan their successful escape from the global state of nature, an escape for which there can be absolutely no viable alternative? There exist really just two potentially coherent responses, and these responses need not be mutually exclusive.

The first and most frequently recommended reaction focuses on somehow changing a perpetually conflict-based mechanism of world politics. Even before the appearance of what was formally called “World Order Studies” back at Yale and Princeton in the 1960s,[9] philosophers from Dante and Immanuel Kant to H.G. Wells, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Sri Aurobindo had elaborated imaginatively on various configurations of world government.[10] Today, even if we can convincingly oppose any or all such configurations, the underlying imperative to think in more disciplined fashion about “reordering the planet” is still fully urgent.[11]

The second reasonable response must take analytic investigators back to the true origins of the problem, that is, to the universally conspicuous and undiminished imperfections of individual human beings. With this suitably intellectual posture, one that would correctly regard all world politics as epiphenomenal, or as mere manifestation of deeper causes, the scholar’s (and later policymaker’s) overriding emphasis must be upon “fixing people.”[12] To be sure, if the first reaction could be critiqued as “unrealistic” or “utopian,” the second would qualify even more plainly for such pejorative characterizations.

But how, precisely, to proceed?

Here, the most promising answers will require a consciously transformational focus upon the individual human being, on the pertinent microcosm and on his or her primary place in “global rescue” preparations. So long as it remains predicated upon fully erroneous definitions of patriotism, our nation-state system of world politics will be incapable of serving humankind’s most basic security and justice obligations. Earlier, German-Swiss philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche had exclaimed prophetically in Zarathustra that the “state is the coldest of all cold monsters,”[13]  a darkly accurate view later reinforced by Spanish thinker Jose Ortega y’ Gasset.  Observed Ortega” “The state is the greatest danger.”[14]

 But even the most refined prescriptions for improved global coordination or governance will require certain antecedent changes in individual human behavior. This is the case, moreover, in spite of the apparent improbability of any such “molecular” changes. In other words, much as we might still think such changes unlikely or even impossible, we have literally no alternative.

Quite literally, the present-day time-dishonored world system is destined to fail.[15]

In essence, it is most urgent that we learn to supplant the relentlessly belligerent aspects of patriotism with more gainful visions of cooperation, interdependence  and “oneness.” Apropos of such an imperative learning, both scholars and policy makers would be well-advised to recall the special wisdom of Jesuit French philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: “The egocentric ideal of a future reserved for those who have managed to attain egoistically the extremity of `everyone for himself’ is false and against nature.”

Now, this incontestable warning in The Phenomenon of Man assumes especially powerful relevance regarding US President Donald Trump’s deeply injurious  emphases on “America First.” By definition, these retrograde emphases are incompatible with any reasonably sought-after outcomes of world peace and justice. Instead, they point directly toward enlarging the prospects for both human insecurity and human degradation.

Though understood only by those still willing to undertake suitably disciplined thought, there exist many intimate connections between intra-national and inter-national power processes. Among other things, these links suggest that “fixing states” could represent the vital intermediary step between fixing individual human beings and fixing the wider world. Accordingly, in American universities, which are increasingly given over to implementing narrowly vocational forms of education, we need to bring-back and amplify “world order studies” as a designated field of respectable academic inquiry.[16]

For those prospective students determined to study business, computers or technology, it will be worth keeping in  mind that there can be no meaningful achievements of individual wealth or success when the world as a whole tilts only toward more war, terror and genocide.

In general, before humanity can maximize rule-based and value-based forms of global cooperation, there will first have to take place certain distinctly primary human changes. Although it may be premature to identify a systematic and sequential inventory of such required changes, the needed process is by no means ambiguous. Wittingly, this process would reject the distracting delusions of a society given over to demeaning amusements and would accept instead a genuinely challenging set of intellectual imperatives. Ultimately, any suitably alternative forms of global cooperation will demand dialogue not only among fractious nation-states, but also among individual human beings.

Such forward-looking and dynamic thinking can bring us back gainfully to French Jesuit philosopher Teilhard, and to the primary importance of system: “The existence of `system’ in the world is at once obvious to every observer of nature….Each element of the cosmos is positively woven from all the others.” Complementary “lessons” can be found in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata; these lessons conveniently recollect what used to be called “cosmopolitanism” or a determined ideology of global integration :[17] “Then you should card it and comb it, and mingle it all/in one basket of love and unity,/Citizens, visitors, strangers, and sojourners – all the/entire, undivided community.”

In the end, any state’s true patriotic interests can be met solely by cultivating a greater and more unqualified loyalty to humankind in general. In the United States, this rationally redirected loyalty, which would be labeled as “unpatriotic” by most Americans, will require a prior and far more robust development of intellect or “mind.”  Such a development, moreover, would be at definitional odds with any exaggerated expectations of current Trump-era “populism.”[18]

Nothing useful could be solved by adding more and more adrenalized encouragements of technology or entrepreneurship.

The overriding problem of “creating a future” in world politics will be solved by any new multiplication of “personal devices.”

Also, it won’t help individuals to “win” in any “shark tank” if the tank itself has already been drained.

 Ultimately, we will all need to replace the recognizably false communion of nation-states – one now, like the High Lama’s prediction, that is close to collapsing – with a reassuringly new and authentic harmony. When such an ambitious replacement is at last successful, or at least discernibly underway, we could finally take seriously an earlier critical promise of Sigmund Freud. While Freud was not focused on world politics per se, he would surely still agree with the following proposition: A greatly expanded or fully supplanting power of global community can make sense only if there can first be rejected an inwardly-rotten “balance-of-power” dynamic, one that is mistakenly based on fear, trembling and a near-perpetual dread.

One last summary observation will be be offered here, one that points toward a key potential barrier to creating a more just and viable future, toward overcoming an impediment to all conceivably plausible forms of human transformation. The worrisome “fly in the ointment” here concerns the continuously problematic assumption of human rationality. Even before Freud, and most markedly in Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, we may read with long-term benefit about human irrationality.

Much as we might try to deny it, irrationality – not rationality – has been the actual foundation of nation-state decision-making in world politics.

Though daunting and seemingly out of place, the literary/philosophic recognition of the “absurd” –  Credo quia absurdum; “I believe because it is absurd” – must somehow be incorporated into all proposed nation-state programs for global reform. Without such an indispensable incorporation, every otherwise carefully worked-out prescription for global “civilization” could fail promptly and calamitously.

Current assertions of “America First” notwithstanding, traditionally combative expressions of  nationalism can never be authentically patriotic. Even among the most evident antinomies of the world, any truly promising spirit of patriotism must first acknowledge (1) the core singularity or “oneness” of our species;[19] and (2) the corollary interdependence of all nation-states. In the end, inter alia, any serious and decent forms of patriotism must affirm that all human beings are enduringly and indissolubly interconnected.[20]

Bottom line for the United States: There can be no suitable “America First” posture that is detached from the calculable well-being of nation-states in general.

None at all.

To the American president and other world leaders, please take note: What cannot benefit the world system as a whole (the “hive”) can never benefit the individual nation-state (the “bee”).

[1] “Theories are nets,” reminds Karl Popper, citing to the German poet Novalis, “only he who casts, will catch.” See Popper’s epigraph to his classic, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959). Ironically, Novalis’ fellow German poet, Goethe, declared, in his early Faust fragment (Urfaust): “All theory, dear friend, is grey. But the golden tree of life is green.”

[2] See F.E. Adcock, The Greek and Macedonian Art of War (1962).

[3] Recall, in this connection, Bertrand Russell’s timeless warning in Principles of Social Reconstruction (1916): “Men fear thought more than they fear anything else on earth, more than ruin, more even than death.”

[4] See, by this author, at Harvard National Security Journal, Harvard Law School:  See also, by Professor Beres, at Modern War Institute, West Point:

[5] See, by this writer, Louis René Beres,

[6] Such failure, of course, would be most “palpable” and consequential when this country finds itself in extremis atomicum.

[7] A bellum omnium contra omnes

[8] Significantly, Hobbes’ Leviathan was well-familiar to the founding fathers of the United States, especially Thomas Jefferson.

[9] This author, Louis René Beres, was a part of this original disciplinary inauguration at Princeton in the 1960s. In turn, much of this Princeton-based inauguration was derived from still earlier work at the Yale Law School.

[10] My own doctoral dissertation at Princeton, completed in 1971, explored the logical foundations of global centralization. See: Louis René Beres, The Management of World Power: A Theoretical Analysis (University of Denver, Monograph Series in World Affairs, Vol. 10, Monograph No.3., 1972-73), 93pp; also Louis René Beres and Harry R. Targ, Reordering the Planet: Constructing Alternative World Futures (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1974).

[11] Here we may learn from the Irish playwright Samuel Beckett’s Endgame: “What is the good of passing from one untenable position to another, of seeking justification always on the same plane?”

[12] Rabbi Eleazar quoted Rabbi Hanina who said: “Scholars build the structure of peace in the world.” The Babylonian Talmud, Order Zera’im, Tractate Berakoth, IX

[13] The classic contra-view is offered by Friedrich Hegel in The Philosophy of Right:, which calls the state “the march of God in the world” and “the actuality of the ethical idea.” This contra notion of the state as a genuinely sacred phenomenon was most dramatically formalized by fascist movements in the 20th century. Inter alia, the modern roots of such state-worshiping behavior lie prominently in Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s Addresses to the German Nation and also in the assorted writings of Heinrich Treitschke.

[14] “The   State,” explains Ortega in The Revolt of the Masses, “after sucking out the very marrow of society, will be left bloodless, a `skeleton,’ dead with that rusty death of machinery, more gruesome even than the death of a living organism.”

[15] One may think here of the warning by the High Lama a in James Hilton’s Lost Horizon: “The storm…this storm that you talk of….It will be such a one, my son, as the world has not seen before. There will be no safety by arms, no help from authority, no answer in science. It will rage until every flower of culture is trampled, and all human things are leveled in a vast chaos….The Dark Ages that are to come will cover the whole world is a single pall; there will be neither escape nor sanctuary.”

[16] See, for example, Louis René Beres and Harry R. Targ, Planning Alternative World Futures: Values, Methods and Models (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975).

[17] A wonderful “summary text” of these complex issues remains W. Warren Wagar’s Building the City of Man: Outlines of a World Civilization (New York: Grossman Publishers, 1971), 180 pp.

[18] Still the best source of explanations for this “barrier” is Jose Ortega y’ Gasset’s seminal The Revolt of the Masses (1930).

[19] Says the Talmud: “The earth from which the first man was made was gathered in all the four corners of the world.”

[20] To be sure, any such affirmation seems improbable. Nonetheless, reminds Italian film director Federico Fellini insightfully: “The visionary is the only realist.” Similarly, from the German philosopher Karl Jaspers: “Everyone knows that the world-situation in which we live is not a final one.” (Man in the Modern Age, 1951).

LOUIS RENÉ BERES (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) is Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue. His twelfth and most recent book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel's Nuclear Strategy (2016) (2nd ed., 2018) Some of his principal strategic writings have appeared in Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School); International Security (Harvard University); Yale Global Online (Yale University); Oxford University Press (Oxford University); Oxford Yearbook of International Law (Oxford University Press); Parameters: Journal of the US Army War College (Pentagon); Special Warfare (Pentagon); Modern War Institute (Pentagon); The War Room (Pentagon); World Politics (Princeton); INSS (The Institute for National Security Studies)(Tel Aviv); Israel Defense (Tel Aviv); BESA Perspectives (Israel); International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; The Atlantic; The New York Times and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Continue Reading


America and the World: A Vital Connection



“The egocentric ideal of a future reserved for those who have managed to attain egoistically the extremity of `everyone for himself’ is false and against nature.”-Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man

Human “oneness” represents an incontestable truth.[1] It is axiomatic. At the same time, all derivative imperatives of universal cooperation remain subordinate to belligerent nationalism.

               Why? The contradictions are glaring. Everywhere, including the United States, national governance continues to rest on conspicuously “false” ideals of “everyone for himself.”  

               In such determinative matters, nothing truly fundamental ever seems to change.

               What next? The negative outcomes of these contradictions are stark and unambiguous. For the most part, they suggest endless spasms of war, terrorism and genocide. It follows, among other things, that without a more willing rejection of “everyone for himself” philosophies, the American nation and many others will be left increasingly fragile. Already, roiled by needlessly rancorous national behaviors, we can expect only further increments of  unsustainable decline.[2]

               There are also pertinent specifics. It’s not just about general or overarching conditions. Credible national expectations exist not only in the tangible matters of weapons and infrastructure, but also in variously underlying national security doctrines.

               Core issues here are not really complicated. In these unprecedented nuclear times – times that are sui generis by any plausible definition – zero-sum orientations to national security are more-or-less destined to fail. In the final analysis, recalling French Jesuit philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, this intolerable “destiny” exists because such consistently shortsighted orientations are “false and against nature.”

                History can be instructive. By definition, former US President Donald J. Trump’s “America First” misfired on all cylinders. Trump’s conflict-directed orientation, driven by gratuitous rancor and a narrowly bitter acrimony, portended more than “just” incessant geopolitical loss.  It also signified a doctrine-based incapacity to protect the United States from catastrophic wars.  In a worst-case but still easily-imagined scenario, such wars could quickly become nuclear.[3]

               A once-distant prospect is being rendered less unimaginable because of Russia’s escalating aggressions against Ukraine.[4]

               To progress beyond the self-reinforcing debilities of “America First,” America’s national security problems should be assessed in proper analytic context. From the mid-seventeenth century to the current moment – that is, during the continuously corrosive historical period that dates back to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 – our inherently adversarial “state system” has produced neither peace or justice. Prima facie, there is nothing on any foreseeable horizon that points promisingly to national or world system transformations.

               Even now, we cling desperately to the “unspeakable lies”[5] of politics.

               Exactly where does the persistently fragmented world political system “stand?” To begin, global anarchy is not about to disappear or give way to more rational configurations of cooperative security. This evident lack of world-system governance can never become a propitious context for civilizational atonement, advancement or human survival. Though generally unacknowledged,  Realpolitik[6] or power politics has always proven its own insubstantiality.

                As a single state in world politics –  and as a “powerful” player among almost 200 unequal nation-states – the US is not immune from planet-wide responsibilities. This sober conclusion about global peace and justice is largely unassailable. It remains just as applicable to the “great powers” as to presumptively less powerful actors.  Indeed, regarding future US foreign policy obligations, nothing could be more readily apparent or ominously prophetic.[7]

               There is more. At the beginning of his time in office, former President Donald Trump’s “everyone for himself” view of the world was revealed by his national security advisor, H.R. McMaster. Expressed in a Wall Street Journal Op Ed piece dated June 3, 2017, General McMaster declared: “President Trump has a clear-eyed outlook that the world is not a `global community,’ but an arena where nations, nongovernmental actors and businesses engage and compete for advantage.” For additional emphasis, the cliché-captivated general added naively: “Rather than deny this elemental nature of international affairs, we embrace it.”[8]

               But exactly what was being “embraced?” It all sounded reasonable, of course, but it also made no intellectual or historical sense. Even under a more stable and less dissembling American president, Trump’s supposedly “realistic” view of the world now remains significantly unmodified. Responding to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the United States has thrust itself into an ever-expanding nuclear arms race without any theory-based conception of a successful “endgame.” Though Vladimir Putin’s crimes ought certainly not go unpunished,[9] the result of accelerating tit-for-tat operations in both Moscow and Washington can only be further military escalations and (ultimately) uncontrollable world system breakdowns.

                Real history, as we may learn from Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, is the “sum total of individual souls seeking some form of redemption.”[10] Recognizable expressions of any broader human search for security can be detected in the self-centric legal ideals of sovereignty and self-determination. The oft celebrated “self” in these ideals, however, refers to entire peoples, and not to individual human beings. This self-actualization references perpetually conflicting states, collectivities that are preparing not for coexistence, but for recurrent war[11] and genocide.

               If real history continues to be ignored, the lamentable result can only be yet another measureless orgy of mass killing, one dutifully sanitized (per earlier simplifying determinations of retired US General H.R. McMaster) as “realistic.”

               For Americans, it’s finally time to think seriously.  Immediately, world-system context must be more fully understood and intelligently acknowledged. Always-primal human beings, divided into thousands of hostile “tribes” (almost two hundred of which are called “states”) still find it temptingly correct to slay “others.”

               What about “empathy?” Normally, amid such self-destroying human populations, this capacity is reserved for some of those within one’s own “tribe.” Moreover, this reservation holds true whether relevant tribal loyalties are based on geography, nationality, ideology or religious faith.

                It follows, inter alia, that any deliberate expansion of empathy to include “outsiders” represents a distinctly necessary condition of global progress, and that without such an expansion our species will remain fiercely dedicated to policies of nationalistic predation.How shall we best proceed? What should be done in the extant American union to encourage expanding empathy and more caring feelings between “tribes”?  Reciprocally, we should inquire further: How can we improve the state of our world to best ensure a more viable fate for the beleaguered American commonwealth?

               For the United States, these are difficult intellectual questions, challenging queries that will demand conclusive victories of “mind over mind,” not just ones of “mind over matter.”[12]

                At some point, the essential expansion of empathy for the many could become dreadful, improving human community, but only at the expense of private sanity.  And this could quickly prove to be an intolerable expense. We humans, after all, were “designed” with very particular boundaries of permissible feeling. Were it otherwise, a more extended range of compassion toward others could bring about total emotional collapse and derivatively collective disintegrations.

               Always, humankind must confront a strange and self-contradictory kind of understanding. This potent confrontation suggests that a widening circle of human compassion represents both an indispensable prerequisite to civilizational survival and an inevitable source of private anguish. 

               There is more. Sometimes, truth can emerge only through paradox. According to certain ancient Jewish traditions, the world rests upon thirty-six just men – the Lamed-Vov.  For them, the overall spectacle of the world is grievously combative and endlessly insufferable. 

               But is there anything useful to be learned from this parable about the state of a nation and the state of the world?

               What if these two conditions are intersecting or even synergistic? In the latter case, a specific subset of the former, the “whole” of any outcome is actually greater than the sum of its “parts.”[13]

               There are many conceivable meanings to this elucidating Jewish tradition, but one is expressly relevant to struggles between “America First” and “World Civilization.” A whole world of just men and women is plainly impossible. Ordinary individuals could never bear to suffer the boundless torments of other human beings beyond a narrow circle of identifiable kin. It is precisely for them, the legend continues, that God created the Lamed-Vov.

               What are the core lessons here? Empathy on a grander scale, however necessary in principle, must also include a prescription for individual despair. What happens then? How shall humankind reconcile two utterly indispensable but mutually destructive obligations?

               It’s a fundamental question that can no longer be ignored.

               To arrive at a meaningful answer, greater analytic specificity will be needed. What happens next regarding the increasingly fragile American union? What exactly should be done? How shall interacting nations deal with a requirement for global civilization that is both essential and unbearable?

               Once made aware that empathy for the many is a precondition of any more decent world civilization, what can best create such necessary human feeling without occasioning intolerable pain?

                For certain, clarifying answers to such a starkly complex question can never be found amid the “unspeakable lies” of political oratory. They can be discovered only in the resolute detachment of individual human beings from their crudely competitive “tribes.”  Recalling French philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, any more perfect society, whether national or international, must stem from a carefully-calculated replacement of civilization with “planetization.” Furthermore, any such redemptive replacement would need to be premised upon an inextinguishable global solidarity, that is, on a carefully designated order of planetary “oneness.”

               Going forward, individual flesh and blood human beings[14] and not their cumulative nation-states, should become the primary focus of  national and global reform. Without such a rudimentary transformational focus, there could be no long term human future for planet earth. In turn, this vitally gainful replacement would depend upon certain prior affirmations of self, most urgently regarding steadily expanding acceptance of a universal sacredness.

                There is more, Such short-sighted American policies as former US President Donald J. Trump’s “America First” should never disregard the human rights of persons who live in other countries.[15] In more precisely legal terms, the former president’s blatantly neglected human rights imperative was not just a matter of volitional cooperation or acceptable choice. It represented an integral requirement of a US domestic law, one that had already long-incorporated variously binding norms of international law.

               For those casual doubters of “incorporation” who remain politically committed to contrived bifurcations of US law and international law, they can learn what is necessary by examining Article 6 of the US Constitution. This “Supremacy Clause” mandates adaptations of authoritative treaty law. These obligatory adaptations are plain and unambiguous.

                Overall, Americans should finally understand that the state of their domestic union can never be any better than the state of their wider world.[16] To act pragmatically upon this core understanding, an American president must first wittingly range far beyond any traditionally “realistic” orientations to world politics. To competent logicians and scientists, these simplifying orientations are obviously fallacious. More specifically,as easily determinable errors of logical reasoning, they represent evident examples of an argumentum ad bacculum.[17]

               “America First” was a colossal mistake, one that continues to disadvantage the United States. The state of the American union should never have been fashioned or articulated apart from much broader considerations of planetary security and survival. These considerations, in turn, have been drawn from the authoritative law of nations (international law) into US law. In the revealing words of William Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the Law of England[18]  reflect the most basic foundations of US jurisprudence: “Each state is expected, perpetually, to aid and enforce the law of nations, as part of the common law, by inflicting an adequate punishment upon the offenses against that universal law.”[19]

               There could never be a more reasonable or decent expectation.[20]

[1]The history of western philosophy and jurisprudence includes variously illustrious advocates of global unity, interrelatedness or “oneness.” Most notable among them are Voltaire and Goethe. We need only recall Voltaire’s biting satire in the early chapters of Candide and Goethe’s oft-repeated comment linking belligerent nationalism to the declining stages of civilization. One may also note Samuel Johnson’s expressed conviction that patriotism “is the last refuge of a scoundrel;” William Lloyd Garrison’s observation that “We cannot acknowledge allegiance to any human government…Our country is the world, our countryman is all mankind;” and Thorsten Veblen’s plain comment that “The patriotic spirit is at cross-purposes with modern life.” Similarly, straightforward sentiments are discoverable in writings of the American Transcendentalists (especially Emerson and Thoreau) and Friedrich Nietzsche’s Human, all too Human. Let scholars also recall Santayana’s coalescing remark in Reason and Society: “A man’s feet must be planted in his country, but his eyes should survey the world.” The unifying point of all such cosmopolitan remarks is that narrow-minded patriotism is not “merely” injurious, it is also de facto “unpatriotic.”  

[2] See, by this writer, at Israel Defense (Tel Aviv): Louis René Beres,

[3] On irrational nuclear decision-making by this author, see Louis René Beres, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: See also, by Professor Beres, (Pentagon). For authoritative early accounts by Professor Beres of nuclear war expected effects, see: Louis René Beres, Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe in World Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980); Louis René Beres, Mimicking Sisyphus: America’s Countervailing Nuclear Strategy (Lexington, Mass., Lexington Books, 1983); Louis René Beres, Reason and Realpolitik: U.S. Foreign Policy and World Order (Lexington, Mass., Lexington Books, 1984); and Louis René Beres, Security or Armageddon: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (Lexington, Mass., Lexington Books, 1986). Most recently, by Professor Beres, see: Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (New York, Rowman & Littlefield, 2016; 2nd ed. 2018).

[4] See by this writer at JURIST, Louis René Beres:

[5] See Rainer Maria Rilke, the Dionysian poet famous for philosophical matters of “being” (in German, “Existenzphilosophie)”: Possibility of Being, 1957.

[6] For an early book by this author on this doomed orientation to world affairs, see: Louis René Beres, Reason and Realpolitik: US Foreign Policy and World Order (1984). See also, by Professor Beres, Terrorism and Global Security: The Nuclear Threat (1987) and America Outside the World: The Collapse of US Foreign Policy (1987).

[7] Never to be overlooked is that international law is a part of US domestic law. In the precise words used by the U.S. Supreme Court in The Paquete Habana, “International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination.  For this purpose, where there is no treaty, and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations.”  See The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 678-79 (1900).  See also:  The Lola, 175 U.S. 677 (1900); Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, 726 F. 2d 774, 781, 788 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (Edwards, J. concurring) (dismissing the action, but making several references to domestic jurisdiction over extraterritorial offenses), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1003 (1985) (“concept of extraordinary judicial jurisdiction over acts in violation of significant international standards…embodied in the principle of `universal violations of international law.'”).

[8] Although highly unlikely that either McMaster or Trump was actually aware, the philosophic origins of such “realistic” thinking lie in the classical “Argument of Thrasymachus,” offered in Book 1 of Plato’s Republic: “Right is the interest of the stronger.” In the final analysis, such alleged realism is perpetually self-destructive and effectively naive.

[9] See by this writer, at JURIST:  Louis René Beres,  See AGREEMENT FOR THE PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS OF THE EUROPEAN AXIS POWERS AND CHARTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL.  Done at London, August 8, 1945.  Entered into force, August 8, 1945.  For the United States, Sept. 10, 1945.  59 Stat. 1544, 82 U.N.T.S. 279.  The principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal were affirmed by the U.N. General Assembly as AFFIRMATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW RECOGNIZED BY THE CHARTER OF THE NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL.  Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, Dec. 11, 1946.  U.N.G.A. Res. 95 (I), U.N. Doc. A/236 (1946), at 1144.  This AFFIRMATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW RECOGNIZED BY THE CHARTER OF THE NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL (1946) was followed by General Assembly Resolution 177 (II), adopted November 21, 1947, directing the U.N. International Law Commission to “(a) Formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal, and (b) Prepare a draft code of offenses against the peace and security of mankind….” (See U.N. Doc. A/519, p. 112).  The principles formulated are known as the PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW RECOGNIZED IN THE CHARTER AND JUDGMENT OF THE NUREMBERG TRIBUNAL.  Report of the International Law Commission, 2nd session, 1950, U.N. G.A.O.R. 5th session, Supp. No. 12, A/1316, p. 11.

[10] See C. G. Jung, The Undiscovered Self (1957.

[11]Under international law, the question of whether or not a condition of war exists between states is often unclear.  Traditionally, a “formal” war was said to exist only after a state had issued a formal declaration of war.  The Hague Convention III codified this position in 1907.  This Convention provided that hostilities must not commence without “previous and explicit warning” in the form of a declaration of war or an ultimatum.  See Hague Convention III on the Opening of Hostilities, Oct. 18, 1907, art. 1, 36 Stat. 2277, 205 Consol. T.S. 263.  Presently, a declaration of war could be tantamount to a declaration of criminality because international law prohibits “aggression.” See Treaty Providing for the Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy, Aug. 27, 1948, art. 1, 46 Stat.  2343, 94 L.N.T.S.  57 (also called Pact of Paris or Kellogg-Briand Pact); Nuremberg Judgment, 1 I.M.T.  Trial of the Major War Criminals 171 (1947), portions reprinted in Burns H. Weston, et. al., INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WORLD ORDER  148, 159 (1980); U.N. Charter, art. 2(4).  A state may compromise its own legal position by announcing formal declarations of war.  It follows that a state of belligerency may exist without formal declarations, but only if there exists an armed conflict between two or more states and/or at least one of these states considers itself “at war.”

[12] This distinction figured importantly among the ancient Greeks and Macedonians. See, for example, F. E.  Adcock’s classic text: The Greek and Macedonian Art of War (1957)

[13] See by this author, at Harvard National Security Journal, Harvard Law School: Louis René Beres,

[14] See, in this regard, Miguel de Unamuno’s discussion of “The Man of Flesh and Bone,” in his modern existentialist classic: Tragic Sense of Life (1921).

[15] Interestingly, the founding fathers of the United States – believing firmly in natural law and natural rights – held that the human rights expectations of the Declaration of Independence necessarily apply to all peoples, for all time, and can never be properly reserved solely to Americans. Says Rabbi Avraham Kook, somewhat similarly: “The loftier the soul, the more it feels the unity that there is in us all.”

[16]Says Marcus Aurelius in Meditations: “What does not benefit the entire hive is no benefit to the bee.”

[17] See by this author, at Israel Defense (Tel Aviv), Louis René Beres:

[18] See Book IV.

[19] The related principle of universal jurisdiction is founded upon the presumption of solidarity between states.  See generally Hugo Grotius, ON THE LAW OF WAR AND PEACE (Francis W. Kilsey, tr, 1925) and Emmerich de Vattel, LE DROIT DES GENS, OU PRINCIPES DE LA LOI NATURELLE 93 (1916).  The case for this principle is also built into the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, which impose upon the High Contracting Parties the obligation to punish “grave breaches” of their rules, regardless of where the infraction was committed or the nationality of the perpetrators.

[20]Humankind must first cease making itself into what C.G. Jung calls a “quantité négligible,” into a creature who is a “conscious, reflective being, gifted with speech, but lacking all criteria for self-judgment.”

Continue Reading


Decoding Biden’s Saudi Arabia-Israel visit



Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

US President Joe Biden’s Middle East Policy is likely to be influenced by US domestic politics over the next few months. First, the US President needs to keep domestic oil prices under the check in the run up to the US mid terms later this year, and in that context, the announcement by  Ministers of Saudi led OPEC along with its allies, earlier this month that OPEC+, will drill more oil is welcome news. During the ministerial meeting on June 2, 2022, Ministers of OPEC+ countries agreed on adding 6,48,000 barrels of oil daily in July and August as opposed to the earlier 4,32,000 barrels per day  . After the commencement of the Ukraine-Russia war, Biden had asked Saudi Arabia and UAE to drill more oil, but they had both declined.  The US President has denied that his visit, which has faced scathing criticism from not just human rights activists, but a number of democrat lawmakers, to Saudi Arabia in July 2022 has been prompted by the oil factor. Said Biden while commenting on his Saudi visit in July 2022:

    ‘The commitments from the Saudis don’t relate to anything having to do with energy. It happens to be a larger meeting taking place in Saudi Arabia.’

While oil is an important aspect, Biden is also keen to broker a deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel (the US President shall also be visiting Israel), along the lines of the Abraham Accords signed between UAE, Bahrain and Israel in 2020 with the US being a mediator (trade between UAE and Israel was estimated at USD 1.2 billion in 2021 and both countries also signed a Free Trade Agreement FTA in May 2022)

Senior officials from Saudi Arabia and Israel have been meeting in recent months. In 2020, former Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu visited Saudi Arabia to meet with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in 2020 for talks pertaining to advancing diplomatic relations. Apart from high level interactions between officials of Israel and Saudi Arabia, the last few months have been witness to visits by heads of Israeli tech companies to Saudi Arabia. Saudis have also invested USD 2 Billion venture in a private-equity fund, Affinity Partners, headed by Jared Kushner (son in law of former President Donald Trump who was also envoy to the Middle East during the Trump Administration). Saudi Arabia has also invested in Israeli start ups via a venture fund headed by Steven Mnuchin, Treasury sector in the Trump administration.

Israeli Foreign Minister, Yair Lapid while commenting on Biden’s Middle East visit said:

“The fact that the president’s going to fly directly from here to Saudi Arabia is probably signifying that there is a linkage between the visit and the ability to improve relations,” 

While Saudi Arabia has repeatedly stated that normalisation of ties with Israel will be subject to the addressal of the Palestinian issue, both Israel and Saudi Arabia view Iran as a common threat, and as discussed earlier are keen to strengthen economic ties.  Both countries could begin with direct commercial flights (last year an Israeli private jet landed in Saudi Arabia for the first time) and greater economic linkages

Any progress in Saudi Arabia-Israel ties with US backing could help Biden to prevent his popularity from sliding down any further since he could tout it as a foreign policy achievement. This would further bolster MBS’s image at home, and abroad and also help in strengthening Israeli PM Naftali Bennett’s image at home. Bennett is a right winger and while Israel has been critical of the Iran deal and taken a different stance on the Ukraine issue, he runs a coalition which consists of left leaning outfits as well as centrists which will prevent him from being as hawkish as his predecessor Benjamin Netanyahu. The next few months are likely to pose numerous challenges for the Biden Administration, it remains to be seen if his Middle East visit in July 2022 pans out.

Continue Reading


How did America become ruled by its military-industrial complex?



image source: Wikipedia

The U.S. Government spends on its military, annually, in not just its ‘Defense’ Department, but all of its departments taken together, around $1.5 trillion dollars.  (Much of that money is hidden in the Treasury Department and others, in order to convey to the public the false idea that ‘only’ around 800 billion dollars annually is now being spent for the U.S. military.)

On 25 April 2022, the Stockholm Internal Peace Research Foundation (SIPRI) headlined “World military expenditure passes $2 trillion for first time”, and reported that, “US military spending amounted to $801 billion in 2021, a drop of 1.4 per cent from 2020. The US military burden decreased slightly from 3.7 per cent of GDP in 2020 to 3.5 per cent in 2021.” However, they did not include the full U.S. figure, but only the portions of it that are being paid out by the U.S. ‘Defense’ Department. Consequently, a more realistic global total would have been around $2.8 trillion, which is around twice the approximately $1.5T U.S. annual military expenditure. All of the world’s other 172 calculated countries, together, had spent an amount approximately equivalent to that.

Prior to the creation by U.S. President Harry S. Truman of the U.S. ‘Defense’ Department, on 18 September 1947, replacing the U.S. War Department that had been created on 7 August 1789 by America’s Founders (shortly after the U.S. Constitution had become effective on 4 March 1789), the U.S. was a democracy — however flawed, but a real one, nevertheless. The U.S. actually began its transformation into a dictatorship (serving the owners of the military corporations and of their extraction-corporate dependencies such as Chevron) when, on 25 July 1945, Truman decided that if the U.S. wouldn’t conquer the Soviet Union, then the Soviet Union would conquer the U.S., and, so, he started the Cold War, on that date, determined that his top priority as the U.S. President, would be to place the U.S. Government onto a virtually permanent war-footing, even though World War II against imperialistic fascisms (the “Axis” powers) was just about to end at that time, and would clearly be a victory for the U.S. allies — mainly, the Soviet Union, and the UK empire. Truman, very much unlike his immediate predecessor, FDR, who had been a passionately committed anti-imperialist, had previously been on the fence about empires; but, going forward after that date, he would be totally committed to making the entire world into the first-ever single global empire, which would be in control over the entire planet by the U.S. Government and shared only by its ‘allies’ (vassal nations). That was Truman’s American dream, and it contrasted starkly against FDR’s dream of a future United Nations that would possess a global monopoly on all strategic weaponry and serve as a democratic global federal republic of all nations, each of which nation would have its own legal system for internal affairs, but all of which nations would be subject to the sole authority of the United Nations regarding all international matters. Truman despised FDR and got rid of FDR’s entire Cabinet and close advisors, within less than two years. Truman enormously admired General Dwight Eisenhower, whose advice to him had clinched in Truman’s mind on 25 July 1945 that Winston Churchill was right that if the U.S. would not conquer the Soviet Union, then the Soviet Union would conquer the United States. (Eisenhower, at the very end of his own Presidency, warned Americans against the military-industrial complex that Truman and he himself had jointly created. He was one of history’s slickest liars, and wanted history to remember him as having been a man of peace. He was actually just as much of an imperialist as Truman had been.) And that decision, by Truman, on that date, is what placed the U.S. Government inexorably onto the path toward future rule by a military-industrial complex that would rape the U.S. Constitution — undo the most important achievement of America’s Founders.

The U.S. Constitution had been written by people who loathed the very concept of “standing armies” — any permanent-war government. They had rebelled against an empire, and condemned all empires. This is the reason why they did everything within their power to design a Government that would prohibit any such thing here. And their Government, designed in this way, served the nation well throughout the years from 1789-1947, after which their Constitution gradually became practically abandoned.

A document dated 21 January 1946 from the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and titled “STATEMENT OF EFFECT OF ATOMIC WEAPONS ON NATIONAL SECURITY AND MILITARY ORGANIZATION”, opened with a “Memorandum by the Chief of Staff, U.S. Army,” which itself opened:

Upon reading the Joint Strategic Survey Committee’s statement on the above subject (J.C.S. 1477/5), I obtained a somewhat unfavorable over-all impression. While most of the specific statements made seem reasonable, the over-all tone seems to depreciate the importance of of the development of atomic weapons and to insist unnecessarily strongly that the conventional armed services will not be eliminated. While I agree entirely, so far as the immediate future is concerned, with the latter concept, I have not felt that there is strong public demand at the present that the services be in fact eliminated. The general tone of the statement might therefore be misconstrued by Congress and the public, and be looked upon as an indication of reactionism on the part of the military and an unwillingness under any circumstances to reduce the size of the military establishment. 

That was at a time when the widespread American assumption was that there would continue to be no standing army in this country. Within less than two years of FDR’s death on 12 April 1945, such a permanent-war U.S. Government became officially created. FDR’s plan for a U.N. that would internationally outlaw all empires became replaced by Truman’s plan for an America that would itself become what Hitler, himself, had only aspired to create: the world’s very first all-encompassing global empire. Truman’s dream is today’s American dream, in today’s Washington DC; and here was how the Nobel Peace-Prize-winning U.S. President, Barack Obama (the other of history’s slickest liars), stated it to graduating West Point cadets, on 28 May 2014:

The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come. … Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums. … It will be your generation’s task to respond to this new world.

It’s endlessly onward and upward, for the U.S. All other nations are “dispensable.” And that objective is backed-up now, by half of the world’s military expenditures.

This is how it happened. It happened by deceit, at every step of the way.

Continue Reading



Energy News3 hours ago

Salt and a battery – smashing the limits of power storage

by Caleb Davies Thanks to the renewables’ boom, the limiting factor of the energy revolution is not power supply as much...

Russia8 hours ago

Biden forces Russia to retake all of Ukraine, and maybe even Lithuania

The Soviet Union had included what now are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Byelarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,...

East Asia10 hours ago

The Global-south Geopolitical and Geoeconomic Landscape and China’s Growing Influence

The importance of China’s CPEC project in the region and the obstacles it faces. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, or CPEC,...

Finance11 hours ago

5 Ways LinkedIn Works for Your Career

Any job seeker can reach their goal much faster with the use of job search engines and career platforms. You...

South Asia12 hours ago

Bulldozing Dissent in India

State brutality and hostility have emerged as the defining factors in BJP’s (Bharatiya Janata Party)  policy toward Indian Muslims. From...

Americas15 hours ago

America and the World: A Vital Connection

“The egocentric ideal of a future reserved for those who have managed to attain egoistically the extremity of `everyone for...

East Asia17 hours ago

Five key challenges awaiting Hong Kong’s incoming leader John Lee

Hong Kong’s leader-in-waiting John Lee has officially been appointed as the sixth-term chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative...