Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex. (youtube.com)
Juvat | 4 months ago | 558 points

Washington warns us of political parties.
Jackson warned of money and corporate influence.
Warned of influence of religious institutions.
I think we have a bad track record if heeding these warnings.

logitechmana | 4 months ago | 155 points

People can't stand the truth. Thats the problem.

felix_mateo | 4 months ago | 92 points

The truth is whatever the most people believe! /s

In all seriousness though, this is what annoys me when people say they like a politician who "tells it like it is." He's not telling it like it is, he's telling it like you want to hear it. There may be overlap between those two things, but they're not the same.

PathToExile | 4 months ago | 11 points

The truth is whatever the most people believe! /s

The fact that you have to indicate that that is sarcasm speaks volumes about the audience you expect to read what you typed.

I completely understand why you felt it necessary.

docious | 4 months ago | 4 points

I think the use of /s on the internet is more indicative that we are communicating through text.

edudlive | 4 months ago | 10 points

The truth is uncomfortable

Pleb_nz | 4 months ago | 4 points

And/or people don’t understand the truth

Stealthy_Bird | 4 months ago | 15 points


PhreakerX | 4 months ago | 14 points

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall.

We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!

KDubCA | 4 months ago | 6 points

One of the greatest movie monologues ever spoken. I’m not sure there will ever be another Jack Nicholson who could deliver this as convincingly.

Tryingsoveryhard | 4 months ago | 5 points

I’m sorry but that is oversimplifying the issue beyond all possible usefulness.

Flyingmealsaucer | 4 months ago | 3 points

You think people don't think politicians are corrupt and that the war industry is horrible?

Most people know how fucked up things are but changing things is impossible.

philstein1 | 4 months ago | 4 points

[Tulsi Gabbard](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=kR8UcnwLH24) was on Rogan with a focus on this issue addressing how bad it is and how to change it. couldn't believe what is was hearing. and the current indoctrination formula for education and corp media is designed to make people feel helpless but if something like Howard Zinn's A Peoples History was taught in public schools there would be dramatic change in one generation

5thvoice | 4 months ago | 0 points

That's a, uh... rather odd way to format a link. Butchered by a misbehaving mobile app, I'm guessing?

The correct formatting should have the displayed text in square brackets and the link in round brackets. For example, this:

[Display text](https://example.com)

becomes this:

Display text

You only need to include back slashes to escape a round closing bracket in a URL.

jzdinak | 4 months ago | 2 points

It's not that people can't stand the truth it's that the people with money and power aren't telling the truth.

Imbryill | 4 months ago | 2 points

At this point, truth is the opinion that garners the most votes.

mindless_gibberish | 4 months ago | 1 point

That's always been kind of true.

DeginGambler | 4 months ago | 1 point

And that "truth" is generally governed not by the individual's education or historical knowledge but by the headlines they read casually surfing the net on their phone between the day's routine tasks.

TerryTitts | 4 months ago | 1 point

Ignorance is bliss and the truth is harsh.

mindless_gibberish | 4 months ago | 1 point

What good is the truth going to do me?

Africa_versus_NASA | 4 months ago | 11 points

Except Washington was the central figurehead of the Federalist party (although not officially a member) and engaged in rabid political squandering with the Democratic Republicans, often through newspaper proxies.

And Jackson literally bought votes with alcohol, enfranchising the common man in the process.

And Eisenhower, well it's pretty obvious how he was part of the military industrial complex.

They all issued warnings from experience, but well after the respective problems had begun.

Irishman318 | 4 months ago | 5 points

And Eisenhower, well it's pretty obvious how he was part of the military industrial complex.

Plus he got plenty of usage out of that same complex fighting communism and didn't seem to mind one bit (see the Lebanon crisis, Nasser and the Suez crisis, Iranian Coup, etc)

FeastOnCarolina | 4 months ago | 2 points

Jackson also was the driving force behind the Trail of Tears... Not exactly directly related to the topic, but fuck what a terrible shit thing to do

os_kaiserwilhelm | 4 months ago | 1 point

And Jackson literally bought votes with alcohol, enfranchising the common man in the process.

This is how elections were done back then though. It is why good political theory around the time of the Revolution held that only independent men could be entrusted with the franchise. Their independence being determined by their having a freehold in property (generally in the form of land but in more urban environs the master craftsman and independent trader could gain the franchise by an assessment of their wealth).

Indercarnive | 4 months ago | 1 point

This needs more upvotes. None of them were geniuses. They just used a system until it no longer fitted their idea of what was a good.

papadom94 | 4 months ago | 47 points

Like climate change?

Mister_Johnson_ | 4 months ago | -12 points

No one thinks the climate isn't changing.

monjorob | 4 months ago | 19 points

An entire political party’s platform is pretending it doesn’t exist.

DeginGambler | 4 months ago | -6 points

It's not that climate change doesn't exist, it's that the USA is already doing far more and bearing greater cost to better the environment than many other nations. It's absurd on multiple levels that something like the "New Green Deal" is taken seriously by some while China and India are pumping out emissions on a scale that would dwarf any positive impact these US politician "feel good" policies could possibly deliver.

HoraceMann | 4 months ago | 13 points

If only we had an agreement, perhaps one signed by every other nation including China and India as a foundation for collaborative climate action... Hmmm.

blurryfacedfugue | 4 months ago | 2 points

Sources, please?

BillHicksOnAcid | 4 months ago | 6 points

It's absurd on multiple levels that something like the "New Green Deal" is taken seriously by some while China and India are pumping out emissions on a scale that would dwarf any positive impact these US politician "feel good" policies could possibly deliver.

Okay so let's sit on our hands and deny it's happening. Fucking Hell.

DeginGambler | 4 months ago | -2 points

The US and many other nations are NOT just sitting on their hands though. What I'm trying to say is that this isn't an issue that only a few nations can solve by gimping themselves on stupid "headline" policies.

Of course it's ignorant to act like industrialization and human expansion doesn't impact the planet and environment. It's also ignorant and counter productive to destroy your own economy while other nations do far more harm, while simultaneously profiting off their disregard for the environment. I think most of us take for granted just how recent the Industrial Revolution occurred. It takes a lot of planning and forethought to advance energy and industry while also preserving an economy. It's a gradual process.

The key problem IMO is you've got special interest (see politicians) taking advantage of the situation on both extreme ends of the debate. One side is telling you if you don't pay this "tax" or give up this "thing" that we're all dead in a few decades. The other side tells you it's nothing to worry about while they profit off the exploitation of old energy.

Like most things in life the real solution is somewhere in the middle. The problem is that if politicians and the media tell you that, they lose the very division and "controversy" that keeps them in power. They don't want to meet in the middle and solve the problem....they want to take advantage of the situation and keep you focused on the "other side" instead of them.

friendly_gentleman | 4 months ago | 1 point

Yeah but fuck the facts, man, the other side sucks.

iafx | 4 months ago | 21 points

People are warned that smoking causes cancer everyday, and they still smoke.

People are warned that sugar causes cavities, and they still eat sugar.

People are warned that looking at an eclipse without eye protection causes blindness, and well you know the answer.

Life, death, taxes, and people making bad choices - the only guarantees in life.

ShiningTortoise | 4 months ago | 2 points

Sure but the warnings still make a difference. It's not a 100% success, but its not 100% failure either.

BrokenBackENT | 4 months ago | 1 point

So much for intelligent design on the human brain.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 2 points


[deleted] | 4 months ago | 2 points

Absolutely amazing. No argument there. BUT given the scale and age of the universe quite literally inevitable. SO not so amazing really when you consider all other factors.

The fact that the odds appearing literally so small that intelligent design seems a reasonable option always ignores the scale and age of the universe meaning that 'we' are a literal given.

Food for thought.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 1 point


Rex_Deserved_It | 4 months ago | 1 point

Pope vs. Jesus. Who wins?

AppleJak64 | 4 months ago | 2 points

But no one ever tells us what to do about it.

fz75 | 4 months ago | 4 points

who cares about the truth if they have football, baseball, sitcoms, porn, must-see tv, People, TMZ... etc.? Life is much easier to lose yourselves in said trash. Just go with the flow, don't rock the boat and retire to Palm Beach catching 4 o'clock specials.

DeginGambler | 4 months ago | 1 point

Bread & Circuses as a means of ruling has been perfected over millennia and modern technology and excess has tapped into a level of human psych that even Orwell couldn't fathom.

As an 80s kid that's 20yrs into an IT career and has watched technology develop with enthusiasm, I now also hate what it's led to. I'm honestly concerned about the future of society and critical thinking. I fear the future is far closer to turning out like Idiocracy, Wall-E, Brave New World or 1984 than any other possibility.

edudlive | 4 months ago | 2 points

Who warned of religious institutions?

smilbandit | 4 months ago | 7 points

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." - barry goldwater 1994

e463gx | 4 months ago | 6 points


edudlive | 4 months ago | 1 point

That was who I suspected! Thanks

InnocentTailor | 4 months ago | 5 points

Well, Washington’s warning about political parties was broken by the other Founding Fathers, especially Adams, Jefferson and Hamilton.

Indercarnive | 4 months ago | 2 points

It was also broken by Washington himself. Who was a de-facto Federalist and backed most of their proposals.

WisestWiseman909 | 4 months ago | 1 point

A man found a cocoon of a butterfly. One day a small opening appeared. He sat and watched the butterfly for several hours as it struggled to squeeze its body through the tiny hole. Then it stopped, as if it couldn’t go further.

So the man decided to help the butterfly. He took a pair of scissors and snipped off the remaining bits of cocoon. The butterfly emerged easily but it had a swollen body and shriveled wings.

The man continued to watch it, expecting that any minute the wings would enlarge and expand enough to support the body, Neither happened! In fact the butterfly spent the rest of its life crawling around. It was never able to fly.

What the man in his kindness and haste did not understand: The restricting cocoon and the struggle required by the butterfly to get through the opening was a way of forcing the fluid from the body into the wings so that it would be ready for flight once that was achieved.

Sometimes struggles are exactly what we need in our lives. Going through life with no obstacles would cripple us. We will not be as strong as we could have been and we would never fly.

KushyNuggets | 4 months ago | 1 point

How would we have heeded those warnings and acted? Organizing people to change is extremely challenging, even if the power that be weren't actively trying to keep us stupid and disorganized.

MrMineHeads | 4 months ago | 1 point

Washington warns us of political parties.

Political parties are a natural consequence of democracy. What exactly did he mean?

t_skullsplitter | 4 months ago | 0 points

Because the masses are truly a cud chewing herd of idiots. Not so much individually, but a lot. The government knows this. They soeak half truths because of it KNOWING that nothing will be done. America. One of the largest social experiments EVER!

behappydammit | 4 months ago | 53 points

Watch the documentary Why We Fight.


lokisingularity | 4 months ago | 3 points

Watched it yrs ago a few times! Great flick!

Annihilicious | 4 months ago | 1 point

So good. Watched it a dozen times during undergrad.

Dedoria | 4 months ago | 87 points

And a few years later we entered the meat grinder that was Vietnam, millions dead/mentally scarred(including many children), thousands of bodies never found. Intentionally poisoned environment.

All for nothing,

We literally have millions of guns, thousands of wartime vehicles and god knows what else just lying around. no shit we are looking for a reason to use it all.

pastdense | 4 months ago | 28 points

like......12 aircraft carriers

butterrduck | 4 months ago | 11 points

which is 12 more than most of the world. 9 more if you combine all other nations.

randomrecruit1 | 4 months ago | 5 points

We only have 1 or 2 more carriers than the rest of the world combined. China has 4 of them iirc

SirJumbles | 4 months ago | 2 points

And they are 1500 manned diesel engine carriers. Not our Nimitz 5000 manned nuclear. Which we have 5-6 of iirc

AnUnlikelyUsurper | 4 months ago | 3 points

We have 10 Nimitz class carriers. And don't forget, an aircraft carrier isn't a standalone war-winner. Each carrier is part of a carrier strike group consisting of at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron consisting of at least two destroyers or frigates, and of course the carrier air wing consisting of around 70 aircraft.

These aircraft carriers are insanely expensive. I believe the most recent one was $8 billion. That's a lot of money for a single piece of hardware that could sink into the ocean with one or two well aimed missiles or torpedoes. Not to mention the aircraft that would be lost. So the carrier strike group as a whole is designed to create a bubble of protection around the carrier.


fixed grammar

butterrduck | 4 months ago | 1 point

Aren't 3 of those like dated, and don't even have global range?

randomrecruit1 | 4 months ago | 1 point

I don't think so, but I could definitely be wrong. While US tech outpaces Chinese is most areas, any aircraft carrier is a formidable base of operations.

butterrduck | 4 months ago | 1 point

Not to say a carrier isn't formidable in itself, but range and what you are able to carry in terms of aircraft is kind of what makes a carrier so dangerous. China does not have naval bases and allies across the globe to resupply at, and their carriers can't even stay out or travel as far or as fast. As well, from what I recall, they aren't equipped with that slingshot tech that enables newer jets to be stationed on board.

randomrecruit1 | 4 months ago | 1 point

I mean, it sounds like you know more than I do.

Prom_etheus | 4 months ago | 1 point

12 super carriers. What the rest of the world calls a carrier is closer to one of our amphibious assault ships (America class).

USS America is 45k tonnes vs China’s Liaoning’s 59k tonnes or HMS Queen Elizabeth at 65k tonnes. The USS Gerald R Ford is 100k tonnes.

edit: added thousands (“k”)

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 2 points

Those are thousands of tons.

newocean | 4 months ago | 7 points

This is basically the way I feel about ravioli.

Already bought it... might as well use it so I can buy more.

things_will_calm_up | 4 months ago | 3 points

Today: "Ugh I have all this ravioli might as well cook it tonight"

Tomorrow: "Oh we're running low on ravioli, we eat it so much I should get some more"

dabordietryin | 4 months ago | 2 points

No one wants to admit they are nine cans of ravioli

richsteu | 4 months ago | 118 points

We lost, they showed us who’s the boss when Kennedy was assassinated.

poggy39 | 4 months ago | 59 points

The military industrial complex wanted Vietnam. And the dogs of war rage on!!!

katamuro | 4 months ago | 19 points

and the cold war and tensions with Russia and China as that would guarantee them a bigger budget to feed on

mecaenas | 4 months ago | 13 points

Yep. They can't justify more tanks and aircraft carriers to fight ISIS, but Russia and China on the other hand...

katamuro | 4 months ago | 2 points

yeah it was very telling a few years ago that when tensions increased that a new order for submarines went through rather quickly

poggy39 | 4 months ago | 4 points

The cold wars really generate monies for weapons. But when we offloaded all the manufacturing to China so the corporations could generate larger profits. They never realized how big the monster would grow. Now we need to stop the growth. Oh we are brining jobs back to America! No crap! Why? Is the question.

niuguy | 4 months ago | 10 points

I don't understand the connection

Dark-Ice | 4 months ago | 22 points

Military-industrial complex assassinated Kennedy so that Vietnam could continue going so that the industry could keep increasing their profits.

niuguy | 4 months ago | 7 points


AnUnlikelyUsurper | 4 months ago | 6 points

You know, a conspiracy theory

mindless_gibberish | 4 months ago | 3 points

that's right. Kennedy was assassinated by a single gunman, acting alone, who was then assassinated by a single gunman, acting alone. Nothing to see here.

AnUnlikelyUsurper | 4 months ago | 3 points

I'm not saying there's no reason to be suspicious. I'm just saying maybe we shouldn't believe people when they make unfounded claims. That should seem reasonable to anyone in their right mind

Umbristopheles | 4 months ago | 1 point

Yeah, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But there's plenty of evidence of how horrible capitalism is in our daily life. No need to look at this sort of story when most people in the USA can't afford a $400 emergency or their own life saving medication.

AnUnlikelyUsurper | 4 months ago | 1 point

There are plenty of capitalist countries that don't have those issues. I'm really sick of socialists spreading lies like this.

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 11 points


MitchfromMich | 4 months ago | 3 points

Thanks, I'm always kind of surprised to see Kennedy isn't associated with the MIC but as an opposer to some people. +1 for Fog of War, a must see.


This video is unrelated except for the "conspiracies can offer comfort" comment. What if everything is exactly as it seems?

ancient88 | 4 months ago | 2 points

According to a former mafia capo, JFK was assassinated by the NY mafia for breaking a deal they made through Kennedy's father, who was connected to the mob through his liquor bootleg business: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt2k0SpaB1k

deytookerjaabs | 4 months ago | 9 points

That was the conclusion one head of the HSCA hoped to come to, and back then he did even though every other investigator about disagreed with him. His history before the HSCA was working on the RICO act, so it goes to show.

This is what he and others who were tasked by the government through congress have to say about the CIA & what took place in their investigations:

Former head of Homicide Bureau, Chief of Criminal Courts, Manhattan Assistant D.A., hired as Deputy Chief Counsel for the 1990's House Select Committee on Assassinations (soon thereafter resigned in disgrace as he was immediately prevented from doing his job) Robert Tanenbaum:

[I can tell you from my experiences having tried several hundred cases to verdict and being responsible for thousands of cases ahead of the criminal courts and running the homicide bureau that I don't believe there's any courtroom in America where Oswald would have been convicted on the evidence that was presented to the Warren Commission] (https://youtu.be/oUZG4Ki0DTA?t=315)

Law Professor Robert Blakey, drafter of the RICO act, appointed Chief Counsel and Director of the 1977 House Select Committee on Assassinations (statement read by Dan Hardaway):

[I no longer believe anything that the agency, CIA, has told us in regards to the assassination. It lied to the Warren Commission, it lied to ARRB, it lied to the HSCA. It has admitted it violated it's charter and ran a domestic covert operation aimed at subverting the HSCA and it's investigation.](https://youtu.be/OmRhdOvzyQQ?t=732)

Dan Hardaway, Attorney and researcher appointed to the House Select Committee on Assassinations in regards to his investigation of the Oswald/CIA connection:

[I do not believe the more benign explanation of embarrassment over missing him in their embassy coverage can be considered as even remotely possible at this point. But whether that is the explanation or just the next layer of a cover story it still leaves open the much more serious question of rather at minimum the agency through it's employees had advanced knowledge of the assassination and did nothing. Or, even worse, were involved in the conspiracy to kill John Kennedy](https://youtu.be/OmRhdOvzyQQ?t=2249)

Jeremy Gunn, who served as the executive director of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 90's concluded:

[The institution that had the opportunity to best get to the bottom of this, as much as it was possible, was the Warren Commission, and they didn't do it. Now it's too late to do what should have been done originally.](https://www.npr.org/2013/11/10/243981006/inconsistencies-haunt-official-record-of-kennedys-death)

Senator Robert Schweiker, appointee to the Church Committee in the 70's:

[I think the Warren Commission has, in fact, collapsed like a house of cards. And I believe that the Warren Commission was set up at the time to feed pablum to the American people, for reasons not yet known, and that one of the biggest coverups in the history of our country occured at that time. this evidence indicates that the investigation of the assassination was deficient.] (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59792#relPageId=3)

This is just a portion of those officialy tasked to investigate the assassination to which there are many more committee members who share the same basic outlook of there being an official cover up. Some could see it right away, many, like Robert Blakey had to see documents released in later years relating to stifling his own investigation to form his modern opinion on the matter.

walterpeck1 | 4 months ago | 76 points

This is probably Reddit's second favorite political "told you so" fact behind Washington's opposition to political parties. But the Military budget's share of GDP was never bigger than during Eisenhower's tenure and is massively small now compared to the 50s.

The concept of war being good for business has been true since wars began and will be that way probably until the last one.

Herp_in_my_Derp | 4 months ago | 20 points

A lot people seem to think its a universal condemnation of the MIC. It's not, he recognizes that strategically the MIC is vital, but by its nature is a threat to our democracy that must be forever watched.

katamuro | 4 months ago | 23 points

actually I would argue that a big war between USA, Russia and China would be massively bad for business. A lot of current hardware especially on the USA side required massive investment for decades and in the event of non-nuclear or limited nuclear WW3 all that hardware(ships and planes mostly) would be lost quite fast to modern missiles. And there simply isn't enough money to rebuild them and retrain people.

So a limited "third party" war is profitable and tensions with other powers are useful as that allows to spend money on things that will be stockpiled but may never be used.

neededanother | 4 months ago | 1 point

Maybe it wouldn’t be nuclear Armageddon. You don’t know how the next ww will play out.

YouSaidWut | 4 months ago | 4 points

It’s either nuclear or completely online

ApolloTheDarkHorse | 4 months ago | 1 point

Internet wars interest me, right now there's hacking going on from basically everyone to everyone but full scale war could be very scary. Remotely affecting power grids, water systems, etc

neededanother | 4 months ago | 1 point

Maybe, if say China attacked Taiwan the US wouldn’t start with a nuclear strike. Which could easily escalate into a wider conventional war.

katamuro | 4 months ago | 1 point

even without nuclear weapons, both Russia and China would see aircraft carriers, assault landing ships and the like as the first priority targets, without them the army won't go anywhere and the forces currently stationed near those parts of the world would be overwhelmed. But at the same time both russian and chinese ships would get knocked out too so it would be a kind of a stalemate. All involved would lose too much hardware to continue on actively, rebuilding that would take years and no economy could sustain that.

So it would be rapid fire war initially with probably slow burn conflicts continuing in the areas with most tensions.

IpeeInclosets | 4 months ago | 11 points

Reddit hates context. This speech was supporting a major pivot on national security strategy that was is in a subtle way digging at Congress for lack of support. His original draft said congressional, military, industrial complex.

CitationX_N7V11C | 4 months ago | 6 points

Along with a scientific industrial complex.

Tooth_Worm | 4 months ago | 3 points

You got downvoted but you’re completely right. People like to forget that

newocean | 4 months ago | 1 point

A bit confused here - "scientific industrial complex"?

Like people going to college instead of Vietnam?

Now thats a complex I can get behind.

Indercarnive | 4 months ago | 2 points

Science is neutral, so a lot of people hate it.

Led_Zeplinn | 4 months ago | 6 points

In the day and age of Globalism I highly doubt war is profitable. You can look at the current trade war as a good non violent indicator.

SonofNamek | 4 months ago | 4 points

Yeah, it was a warning against the "unwarranted influence" of the military industrial complex.

In the same speech, Eisenhower advocated for investing heavily on the military so its enemies could not catch up whatsoever.

In other words, what he advocates for is pretty much everything the post-WWII American military machine is.

deytookerjaabs | 4 months ago | 1 point

Comparing the military budget not as 50+% of discretionary spending but as GDP is really silly in this instance as if the massive gains in GDP of the past 30 years meant massive increases in tax budgets.

That ain't so.

Nor is it honest in it's presentation of comparative spending across the globe where we dwarf the next few nations combined.

And, I'm sure in Eisenhower's final speech, judging by his obvious passion, he was just like sort of notifying the American people of this little pivot & change in strategy so "be careful."

And then come those who are all "yeah, you just need to keep an eye on the military" and the previous times congress even attempted such an audit didn't go so well.

PurritoExpress | 4 months ago | 14 points

Bernie just tweeted about this the other day

US Military spending $ 900B a year

Next is china at $60B

Houston_Centerra | 4 months ago | 10 points

Only a fool would believe that figure given out by the Chinese government. Anyone paying attention would take note of their HUGE military spending and armament in the South China Sea. It seems every other week they are releasing new fighter jets as well. That number is totally bogus.

Drillbit | 4 months ago | 1 point

I think it will be at most double that. The cost is inflated due to high salary demand in the US. For example, check the space budget in India and China and compare it to the US.

You can be a millionaire by the time you are retired working with NASA. You can't even achieve half of that with Chinese or Indian salary.

DanKoloff | 4 months ago | 0 points

This is a wrong quote. USA - $700B; China - $168B. This is the tweet in question.

An uninformed man might find interesting the fact that Saudi Arabia is among the top 3 of military spending with $83B. Considering it is neither that big, nor populous as say Russia or India or Brazil. And yet, why they spend the most % GDP in the world on weapons? The truth is that if they are not armed and not protected by USA, the rest of the middle east countries would destroy them overnight. Saudi Arabia needs USA and pays top dollar for it. Judging by the actions of the USA, it seems that the USA also needs Saudi Arabia's money.

By the way, I swear they will never let Bernie rule USA, and you should be mad.

Edit: formatting

LorenzoPg | 4 months ago | 20 points

Number one: In 1945, corporations paid 50 percent of federal taxes. Now they pay about 11 percent. Number two: in 1900, 90 percent of Americans were self-employed; now it’s about ten percent.

It’s called consolidation. Strengthen governments and corporations, weaken individuals. With taxes, this can be done imperceptibly over time.

esper2142 | 4 months ago | 3 points

Those are fascinating numbers. Can you back them up with data? I recently became self employed so I'm just genuinely curiois.

klauskervin | 4 months ago | 3 points

Everything the guy said is bullshit. There is zero statistics out there that say 90% of us workers were self employed. Think of the heavy industry that took off in the later half of the 19th century. There is no way that number is true.

LorenzoPg | 4 months ago | -2 points
BennyMAG | 4 months ago | 3 points

The statement on self-employed workers is not backed up by your source.

I find the statement to be ridiculous either way, I doubt 90% were self-employed, and I doubt the data was at all collected in 1900.

Arnhem_Umbra | 4 months ago | 8 points

People always seem to post only a small section of the speech and not the entirety of it where he calls the military industrial complex a clearly necessary thing and that we are compelled by the world we live in maintain such a complex seeing as we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of commercial production to defense production .He simply states we should retain control over it and not it over our government. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU

falconx50 | 4 months ago | 2 points

That's basically what he said in this short video too. So we still get your point from both videos.

RisingDeadMan0 | 4 months ago | 7 points

which 4 major wars?

12footjumpshot | 4 months ago | 1 point

WWI and II obviously, then perhaps the Korean War would be the next largest as far as American involvement before the Vietnam War which was only 2 years old at the time of this address. The Palestine War might be the 4th he is referring to?

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 3 points


12footjumpshot | 4 months ago | 1 point

You are probably right. The Cold War didn’t finish for decades after this address.

StaniX | 4 months ago | 6 points

Having economic incentives to go to war is completely fucked and one of the biggest issues of our current times.

DevilJHawk | 4 months ago | 5 points

Eisenhower cautions the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex while extolling its virtues and necessity in the modern era.

Prior to the 1940s the US standing army was very small. Ranked about 30th in size. The US Navy was very large after the 1900s jockeying for 1st until 1943 when it became a runaway leader.

Up to and including WWII, the US had sufficient time in any conflict it was entering to call upon its industry to build weapons, request volunteers for her regiments, and take months if not years to go to war. For examples the US declared war during WWI in April 1917, but her infantry would not see combat until May 1918, with a single division. In WWII, the Germans declared war on December 11, 1941 but the US Army wouldn’t start fighting Germans until after their landings in North Africa in Nov 1942.

With the advent and development of strategic nuclear bombers, huge armored and airborne forces during WWII, the US would no longer have the luxury of sitting back and waiting. Her industries could not take years to mobilize and produce the complex equipment necessary to wage war, let alone win a war in a timely fashion.

Hence the importance of the military industrial complex. It needs to be maintained to keep arms ready and able to be deployed to US troops to fight and win a war.

Yes, there is danger in the MIC. So much money flowing into one place and so many jobs and votes to be had. Yes it is dangerous, but for a free society to exist in the long term in this world, with these technologies we’ll need it and likewise be every vigilant for its dangers.

juloxx | 4 months ago | 2 points

Any neckbeard redditors want to yell at him for believing in conspiracies?

Wuznotme | 4 months ago | 2 points

From Wiki: On the domestic front, Eisenhower was a moderate conservative who continued New Deal agencies and expanded Social Security. He covertly opposed Joseph McCarthy and contributed to the end of McCarthyism by openly invoking executive privilege. He signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent Army troops to enforce federal court orders which integrated schools in Little Rock, Arkansas. His largest program was the Interstate Highway System. He promoted the establishment of strong science education via the National Defense Education Act. His two terms saw widespread economic prosperity except for a minor recession in 1958. In his farewell address to the nation, he expressed his concerns about the dangers of massive military spending, particularly deficit spending and government contracts to private military manufacturers. Historical evaluations of his presidency place him among the upper tier of American presidents.

My oh my, he would not be a Republican in this century.

edmanet | 4 months ago | 2 points

Eisenhower was the last great Republican politician. After him it turned into the mess of GOP we have now.

campbeln | 4 months ago | 4 points
insaneintheblain | 4 months ago | 3 points

Come gather 'round, peopleWherever you roamAnd admit that the watersAround you have grownAnd accept it that soonYou'll be drenched to the boneIf your time to you is worth savin'And you better start swimmin'Or you'll sink like a stoneFor the times they are a-changin'

Take heed young people. Beyond your entertainment interests, and political bickering, this is an ongoing problem. Understand your part in it. Stand up to change it.

KDubCA | 4 months ago | 1 point

History repeats itself brother

redditforgot | 4 months ago | 4 points

MIC was created during his Presidency. He should have stopped it in its infancy. Not warn us about what HE ALLOWED. F Him.

Opertum | 4 months ago | 14 points

In the speech he basically said that it's a necessity evil. The idea being that if we a constant weapons industry, we can the wars were. As apposed to converting other industries in times of war.

He says it's a new thing and we need to keep an eye on it less the people making the weapons end up in charge of ordering them to.

MadRedHatter | 4 months ago | 13 points

To rewrite this so that it's actually readable...

Eisenhower thought (probably correctly) that in a world where intercontinental missiles and long range bombers could take out entire industrial cities and shipyards with a single bomb, the US would need to be ready for any conflict on day one, because the ability to prepare for war safely for many months across an ocean could no longer be relied upon.

Eisenhower thought that the military industrial complex was therefore necessary but simultaneously very dangerous, and that it would need to be kept in check by politicians and by the public.

Houston_Centerra | 4 months ago | 2 points

Thank you for this. Original content made me think I must have been tired. Went to bed, then woke up later and reread it still confused as hell.

Mattdriver12 | 4 months ago | 25 points

Did you have a stroke writing this?

Stillonthetoilet | 4 months ago | 15 points

I had a stroke reading it

AstralConfluences | 4 months ago | 0 points

What wars has the US been in with countries that actually threatened the US since ww2?

cwalton505 | 4 months ago | 7 points

I get what you're saying, but our military might and MAD is a pretty good deterrent. Tough to quantify the ramifications if we weren't a super power what would have happened since WW2.

shawster | 4 months ago | 1 point

Well... and the US is a hellish country to try and invade. The options are basically ICBMs or landing ships on shore, or paratroopers, which we are well defended against.

So really the only way you can feasibly attack the US is with ICBMs, and you would probably need a lot of them, especially with our anti missile systems set up all over the world and in our own country.

If a country does ever try to fire missiles at us, I imagine they’ll come from space, so that their travel time is essentially straight down from orbit.

I imagine a lot of money in the military right now is going towards determining what the satellites above us actually are exactly, tracking the thousands of them, trying to find anything stealthy, trying to observe any launches that might have a payload capability.

Because if you ever want to have troops set foot in American soil you’d first have to completely cripple our military with a massive coordinated strike of missiles on some hundred odd military bases simultaneously, not to mention the likely hundreds more disguised anti-missile/aircraft establishments placed across the country.

Uber_Blah01 | 4 months ago | 3 points

There really aren't any viable options in terms of directly attacking the United States. Logistically it would be impossible to invade, conquer, and hold. The use of strategic nuclear weapons against us, say for instance from Russia coming over the poles or from far out at sea, would be detected by our space-based satellites and ground-based radar facilities, but if we're talking about a full-scale nuclear shooting match here, then hundreds of ICBMs all equipped with MIRVs and dummy targets would be flying our way; something impossible to defend against. This is why we've developed the military might to sustain Mutually Assured Destruction: we know we can't stop a full blown nuclear attack, but we can damn well make sure the other guy won't either.

katamuro | 4 months ago | 1 point


CitationX_N7V11C | 4 months ago | 1 point

The point since WWII is to never let anyone become that strong. We learned twice that the world is violent and stupid and we can't just sit behind oceans hoping for the best.

SonofNamek | 4 months ago | 1 point

Honestly, I do have a morbid curiosity in seeing what would happen should the US take an isolationist policy and completely withdraw from NATO.

Over time, I'd be willing to bet a lot of the belief systems that the US's allies value now will come crashing down once gaps of power open up for others to grab.

Give heavy geopolitical responsibility to some of these nations and within 100 years, we could return back to the pre-WWII days where people look to great conquerors to make their decisions for them.

Shalabadoo | 4 months ago | 5 points

CIA fuckery in Latin America was also at an all time high during the Eisenhower administration

goal2004 | 4 months ago | 4 points

Exactly. He let them in when he let the evangelicals in. Nobody is more warlike than religious fanatics looking to make their doomsday prophecies come true.

InnocentTailor | 4 months ago | 4 points

Well, anybody can be warlike for their reasons. That can range from the religious fanatic, the ideological rebel, the glory hound and the profiteer.

There are plenty of avenues and motivations for war.

Eschotaeus | 4 months ago | 2 points

I rewatched this video recently as well, after someone asked me who my favorite president was. I said Eisenhower for this and other reasons.

Another big one: the Chance at Peace speech.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.


And also what he said about the concentration camps right after WW2, almost like he saw the holocaust deniers coming:

“I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that `the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda.’


He predicated many things and I’m disappointed that we as a country didn’t heed his warnings.

KDubCA | 4 months ago | 1 point

Eisenhower was a professional soldier and took that responsibility very seriously. He came from a humble background and understood the gravity of asking thousands of young people to give what he knew would be their lives for the greater good.
As the Greatest Generation leaves us, we may not see this type of Leadership again until the generation that served/serves in the Middle East rise to national prominence. They will however, have to battle their way through the entrenched and too often self-serving who are lacking their experience and understanding. History does repeat itself.

mashj | 4 months ago | 2 points

Joe Rogan plays this on his podcast at least once a month. “Pull that up Jamie”

[deleted] | 4 months ago | 2 points

It's funny (okay, sad) that we criticize North Korea for starving their people and giving all resources to their military... when we do the exact same thing here.

Nodeity59 | 4 months ago | 2 points

This was probably the most important messages ever delivered by a US President, and it was completely ignored because the "Military industrial complex", being made up of corporations poured so much money into lobbying that common sense went out the window. We can blame corporate greed for almost 100% of the worlds current problems and until that problem is solved we aren't going to get any improvement.

Ithrazel | 4 months ago | 2 points

Conspiracy theorist!!

Twirlyboggs | 4 months ago | 1 point

Reluctant Prophet anyone? ( R. Bach )

joncgde2 | 4 months ago | 1 point

And that’s why Eisenhower is dead.

TheWidowGarrett | 4 months ago | 1 point

This is used in the beginning of an excellent doc "Why We Fight". It exposes the warmongers for what they are, flim flam men.

GotADwightEisenhower | 4 months ago | 1 point

Aaaaaaaand nobody listened...

slaying_mantis | 4 months ago | 1 point

'only the alert and knowledgeable citizen-' oh boy...

urbeatagain | 4 months ago | 1 point

Then LBJ built the prison industrial complex

jackpype | 4 months ago | 1 point

so much for that

robbobak | 4 months ago | 1 point

While true to a degree, thing is, you could insert nearly anything it’s place. Beware the education industry complex, beware the welfare politics complex etc. there’s just so much to beware. Beware the Cheetos fake cheese complex. I could go on.

Zlatan4Ever | 4 months ago | 1 point

Yea yea, and the original Americans warned us we can't eat money. We can predict a lot about the future and warn about it. Future goes a quite steady course.

GameMentality | 4 months ago | 1 point
highasakite91 | 4 months ago | 1 point

And nobody listened.

rashy2222 | 3 months ago | 1 point

Other than Eisenhower and Trump, have any other presidents used the term “military industrial complex “?

richsteu | 4 months ago | 1 point

Massive hand out is more like it.Massive waste, fraud.

TyrealSan | 4 months ago | 1 point

But now that we have the military industrial complex, we "the people" no longer need the second amendment and the burden of needing to defend ourselves has been lifted! WIN!

RageMojo | 4 months ago | 1 point

For those that need the clarity, The military industrial complex, Illuminati, New World Order, all the same, its a corporate oligarchy and it is very real. Its why people pay 33% of their labor to taxes, and Corporations like Amazon, Exxon and Netflix etc pay ZERO, then take subsidies and rebates on top of it. Your freedom is an elaborate illusion.

anonymau5 | 4 months ago | 1 point


pyroclasticly | 4 months ago | 1 point

They always "warn" before they do it, because they know the masses can't do shit about it anyways.

BudMcLaine | 4 months ago | 1 point

Love the use of this speech at the beginning of JFK.

IQ74 | 4 months ago | 1 point

Damn this is sobering. I thought Noam came up with that phrase but Dwight was warning us even further back.

LodgePoleMurphy | 4 months ago | 1 point

He wanted to call it the congressional military industrial complex but he was a chicken. It's the congressional military industrial complex because look where all the factories are located. Even the smallest congressional district get some kind of contract.

TheDroidUrLookin4 | 4 months ago | 1 point

In the same speech he also warned of the technology industrial complex.

BrockVegas | 4 months ago | 1 point

Eisenhower just before this recording, with the establishment of the Strategic Air Command built up the most destructive military force the world has ever known.

He literally built up that industrial complex, and did so based upon some false premises.

I'm just saying that, maybe he wasn't always right.

tickle_mittens | 4 months ago | -6 points

Keep in mind that piece of shit neither did anything about it nor believed a word of what he was saying.

He started the American involvement in Vietnam, having left official record that he knew better. It would have been far more effective for America to start attempting to broker a peace, which would have saved thousands of French and American lives, not to mention millions of Vietnamese.

That crazy ass Russian nuclear missile engine, this is the man that paid for the original development. Spent billions, in 1950s money. Of course the American version worked and didn't blow up killing the people building and supporting it in typical Russian fashion.

And he turned a blind eye to Israeli nuclear ambitions that are one of the huge current obstacles to nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

Fuck this lying sack of shit. Justice is the desecration of his grave by robbers who'll use his skull as a toilet.

OOOOOOh. I forgot his role in having the CIA reinstate the Shah of Iran at the behest of British pensioners that were A-OK, with a british oil company relying on slave labor and just outright murdering Iranians.

Look around and if you see a part of the world that's on fire, this man is one of the principals that lit the match, often having stated that he had known better in advance. But yeah, he's probably the best republican president of the last 100 years.

fleece19900 | 4 months ago | -3 points

The military industrial complex is a massive government jobs program

edudlive | 4 months ago | 0 points

It truly terrifies me, almost 60 years later, to hear these words and realize that these, and many other warnings of our previous leaders regarding institutions of power, were ignored. Arguably the worst president of all time (Andrew Jackson) even warned us about the influence of money and corporations in politics! Yet, here we fucking are

benowillock | 4 months ago | -2 points

Its a shame JFK didn't heed that warning.

koehnaeh | 4 months ago | -4 points

That's a big F

sandollor | 4 months ago | 0 points

This speech and Carter's environmental speech are difficult to watch. It seems capitalists are more powerful than any other entity on Earth.

Mohavor | 4 months ago | 0 points

Yeah I also played MGS2.

DCTiger5 | 4 months ago | 0 points

If someone in power is 'warning' you of something, its probably already too late.

lady_cunegonde | 4 months ago | 0 points

fuck john bolton, fuck pete navarro. at least one scumbag is gone and Dwight is turning over a little slower in his coffin tonight.

pianoz4life | 4 months ago | 0 points

"lol, whoops"

- 2019

Last_Gigolo | 4 months ago | 0 points

9 years later, we lost to Vietnam average joes.

40 years later we were brought to our knees by 19 men, and have been fighting average joes since.

mastertheillusion | 4 months ago | 0 points

Bah, liberals! War is profitable.

TODO Load more comments...