The Conspiracy Wiki
Advertisement

The Big Gun conspiracy, most of which is also known as the military-industrial complex, is the lobbyism that corporations that sell weapons and other military equipment perform to increase their sales and thereby profit. Since armaments are the most profitable industry in the world, it also has the most lobbying potential and can therefore create the biggest business conspiracies of all. While crony capitalist media's criticism of gun sales for private use is sometimes claimed to show that "corporations that sell weapons cannot control media", that claim misses the point that sales for private use comprises only a tiny fraction of profit from weapons. By far, Big Gun's most profitable customers are states that buy weapons for military use. This gives Big Gun very little incentive to lobby for liberal gun laws, but very big incentives to lobby for arms races and "suitably" placed wars that point suspicions at some governments instead of corporations.

States use armed military forces to control areas. So without state control, capitalism would lose its biggest source of income (and its second biggest too, since Big Pharma which ranks second on the profit list derives much of its profit from the threat of involuntary commitment which drives up sales of psychiatric medication). The claim that capitalism opposes state control is bullshit. Capitalism lobbies for state control. And the stupid statisticians that claim that "statistics prove the democratic peace theory beyond reasonable doubt" miss the point that multinational gun corporations lobbying for war can choose what countries start wars against what other countries to give a false appearance that the Big Gun corporations are mere bystanders and that "bad" governments are the cause of war.

Obsolescence of weapons and corporate profit[]

Part of the reason why military materiel to states is more profitable than private gun ownership is because arms races between states can be made to induce obsolescence in military materiel. That is, states scrap old military materiel and buy new military materiel because other states buy new and (genuinely or allegedly) stronger weapons too. That is not the case for private gun owners, who keep their guns for a long time and often pass them on in their families.

The fact that someone who inherits a gun from the family need not buy a new gun means that gun corporations could increase their sales of private guns by lobbying for more restrictive gun laws. If whoever becomes a gun owner needs a license for the specific gun and is not allowed to inherit a gun, that means that every new gun owner must buy a brand new gun which increases sales of guns and therefore corporate gun profit. Gun corporations can do false flag "lobbyism" that claim to advocate liberal gun laws to conceal their true lobbyism for license-based increases of gun sales.

The American gullible drain and the sheep of misframed debates[]

One question is why gun corporations are more successful in creating a misframed "debate" that conceals their true license profit in the United States than elsewhere. It may be because advertising for immigration to the United States, especially from Europe, have historically been based on obviously nonsense claims such as "everything is bigger and better in America". Anyone with basic reasoning skills would not buy the claim that American onions are two and a half meters high. That makes Americans descendants of the most gullible European immigrants. America is not a brain drain. America is a gullible drain, which also explains the many ridiculous religious cults in the United States.

Instead of the absurd claim that education secularized Europe, the secularization of Europe can be explained as a result of emigration of gullible fools to the United States. It is perfectly possible for natural selection to produce lasting effects in a few generations of intense selection, as shown here. The claim that "Americans who are not white would be unaffected by selective immigration of gullible Europeans" misses the point that Mendelian inheritance does not care about the stupid American "one drop rule". Being classified as something other than "white" by an arbitrary rule does not remove gullibility genes that you inherited from European ancestors from your DNA, any more than absolution by the Pope removes an inbreeding defect from your DNA.

Even without knowledge about Mendelian genetics, anyone with basic reasoning skills who heard about both the "one drop rule" and the claim that people categorized as a particular "race" by that rule "experience discrimination based on their bodies" would understand that the two claims contradict each other since a sufficiently distant ancestor would not visibly affect the body. In fact, six or seven generations are sufficient. It does not have to be tens of thousands of years as both sides derived from the same false premise in the American pseudo-debate claims. Anyone with reasoning skills understands that the concept of "passing privilege" is incompatible with the concept of "discrimination based on the body" since the same trait cannot both be visible and invisible.

In addition to stupid religious cults and the stupid "one drop rule" both requiring gullibility to believe in, they both also promote gun violence. Both religious conflict and segregation increase gun violence. This gives gun corporations motives to lobby for both not only to increase private gun consumtion, but even more so to increase police gun "modernization" during the dealing with gun violence. When the police buys more modern guns for more dangerous situations, Big Gun gets more profit.

This theory explains why Sweden, the country in Europe where imitation of American identity politics has the strongest hold in the institutions, is also the only country in Europe where gun violence is increasing. The immigration from Muslim countries in itself cannot be the cause, since other European countries with similar population percentages of Muslim immigrants such as Germany have much less gun violence. That is, countries that Americans frequently demonize as "color-blind". The claim that anyone who do not copypaste United States definitions of "race" is a "colorblind racist" also contradicts the claim that the "Protestant work ethic" is the cause of "colorblind racism" since there are Catholic countries that do not imitate U.S. definitions of "race" both in Europe (e.g. France) and elsewhere (e.g. Brazil). The theory also explains why much gun violence in the United States is committed by Christian Americans, not Muslims.

The allegation that the Protestant work ethic leads to assumptions that all who work properly become wealthy confuses Lutheran theology with Calvinist theology. Lutheranism and Calvinism are theologically incompatible because Lutheran theology links salvation to faith while Calvinist theology links both salvation and condemnation to predestination. While Lutheran theology views work as a duty, it does not view proper work as a guarantee for becoming rich. Calvinist theology says that God makes those predestined to salvation rich, but Calvinism does not say that work builds wealth. The Church of England is sometimes claimed to be a "compromise" between Lutheran and Calvinist protestantism, but Anglican theology is copied from Lutheran theology and rejects predestination altogether. It is only in purely lithurgical rite form that the Church of England have borrowed from Calvinism.

The Puritans were religios dissidents who fled from England, so their religion should not be confused with Anglican theology nor with the theology of American churches that copy Anglican theology. The English also got along much better with Lutheran nations than with the Calvinist Dutch during just about every religious conflict after the Reformation. During the Boer War, the British put Calvinist Boers in camps and did not treat them much better than they treated Catholics. In no conflict over colonies have the British treated Lutheran settlers from Lutheran countries that badly. So stop confusing Calvinism with Lutheranism!

Temporary visitors from Europe who did not choose to stay in the United States have often been chocked by American segregation. This applies not only to contemporary identity politics, but also to visits during the legislated segregation period and during the even earlier slavery. The objections were also similar. This means that it is idiotic to lump criticisms of American identity politics from an European context with American segregationism. Since this includes visitors before corporate lobbyism took control over all political parties, this remark does not contradict the point that contemporary "social justice" movements are puppets of corporate HR capitalism. Why would people who choose not to stay in a country because they found both sides of its political debate objectionable be like one side of that country's political debate?

This also explains why people who had to leave Europe for the United States have made far more scientific and technological contributions than the descendants of those who voluntarily migrated from Europe to the United States. During WWII and somewhat into the postwar era, much of the science in the United States was performed by Jews who had fled the Holocaust and much of the engineering and inventing was performed by people who had been active in engineering projects in Nazi Germany without really believing in Nazism and had to seek NASA's protection to avoid prosecution for war crimes. People of both categories generally never felt at home in any American political movement.

Failure of the democratic peace theory before Big Gun became big[]

"The decline of violence" is explainable by increased population but not changed values[]

It is claimed by the democratic peace theory that the relative peacefulness of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was a result of it being relatively democratic for its time. However, one obvious flaw in the claim that democratic values creating a general revulsion against violence had anything to do with it is the fact that executions for witchcraft continued longer in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth than in other countries. At the time, Big Gun was not so big in the commercial sense. Light firearms that were carried by soldiers were not generally destroyed when the soldiers were killed, and heavier armaments relied on quality rather than quantity. At that time, heavy artillery was rare and even major sea powers often relied on 10 to 20 very heavy ships to patrol their marine empires the loss of but one was considered a major defeat. But Prussia, Austria and Russia had national interests in lobbying to keep Poland militarily weak, first for use as a buffer state between them and later for the partitions of Poland.

In fact, the decrease of war casualties per capita can be explained as a result of population increase, as a larger population means that a smaller percentage of the population is needed in the military to defend the same surface area. This explains why war casualties have increased in absolute numbers at the same time as they have decreased per capita, as well as why the percentage of civilians among the war casualties have increased at the same timescales. All of these changes continue to the present day. The fact that civilians have increased in percentage among deaths in war clearly contradicts the claim that it is "humane" values that are responsible for decreasing war casualties per capita, since such values would decrease the ratio of "innocent" civilians to soldiers killed in war. But it is predicted by the population scaling theory of war casualties, since a smaller percentage of the population in the military increases the ratio of civilians to enemy soldiers coming in the way of an army.

Historically cyclical condemnation of wars of conquest[]

The democratic peace hypothesis may claim that "prohibiting wars of consquest is distinct from rules in war such as treatment of civilians" without explaining why, but even that misses the point that civilizations condemning conquest have existed before. Specifically late stages of empires have said that war can be used only for defense and never for attack, including the late stage of the Roman Empire when it was losing provinces over time. Even international agreements against wars of conquest are not completely unprecedented, as late stages of Late Bronze Age civilizations had trade embargoes against countries that practiced wars of conquest. Even third parties took part in the trade embargoes.

So the claim that the last decades to a century have been an unprecedented "progress" towards condemning wars of conquest is ahistorical bullshit. The fact that late stages of civilizations have condemned even the wars of conquest by which their ancestors had expanded their empires, even in antiquity, shows that late stage civilizations condemning conquests is recurring and may be explained by civilizational senescence rather than "progress". So there is no evidence that today's condemnation of wars of conquest is "progressive" either. The trade embargoes against conqueror states in the Late Bronze Age, along with the rest of the diplomatic international system of that era, can be explained by extensive trade synchronizing civilizational senescence across multiple states not confined to one empire. And we know what happened, their dependence on trade made all of them fall like dominoes within less than even the shorter human lifespans of that time when pirates made attacks that earlier, less trade-dependent and more militaristic, stages of the same civilizations would have easily survived.

And do not even try to pull the silly straw man that "you are promoting Russia's wars". Russia's use of euphemisms for invasions show that today's Russia is decadent, just like the United States claiming that their invasions of other countries "intervene for peace and human rights" instead of admitting that they conquer oil shows that the United States is decadent too. The fact that Russia is as decadent as the United States is also shown by the fact that Russia attempts to circumvent sanctions which shows addiction to trade. An actual non-decadent pioneer civilization would not be addicted to trade and therefore not need to circumvent trade sanctions.

Modern "ethics" laws increase pointless animal testing[]

It have been claimed by some believers in the democratic peace theory (e.g. Steven Pinker) that "the long peace" is part of a general modern revulsion against violence that also includes "improved treatment of animals". That claim completely misses the point that modern ethics rules, by demanding that animal testing must be done on very large samples of animals for "statistical significance" (which is stupid), increases the number of animals subjected to testing as well as the amount of laboratory personnel involved in animal testing. By averaging everything out, the methodology of statistics also decrease the possibility of getting information about underlying biological mechanisms out of the studies. So the "ethical" laws increase the amount of animal testing and decrease the scientific information yield of the experiments, which is the opposite of what such "ethics" is claimed by its proponents to do.

Such "ethics" is lobbied by big corporations, and organizations and activists that claim that "opponents of animal testing ethics are sadists" are puppets brainwashed by capitalism through controlled oppositions. The entire claim that the same person who enjoyed hurting others would deny that the victims suffered through "self-deception" contradicts itself since if the person really enjoyed knowing that victims were hurt, such "self-deception" would eliminate (not increase) pleasure. This makes it obvious that so-called "kitten hater associations" (in the correct sense, not as misapplied to people who simply publish theories without peer review) are troll groups. And capitalism profits from such trolling. The same capitalist system lobbied through the idiotic rules that took the scientific method out of clinical trials both psychiatric and somatic, with the same reduction of the usefulness of the results of the same amount of experimentation.

Trade houses, the origin of the military-industrial complex[]

Trade houses, the precursors of corporations, were expanding and increasing their power in the 1700s but Big Gun was a late arrival. An expansion of Big Opium within the British Empire and in some non-British European port cities that traded freely with Britain took place in the 1700s, long before its further expansion into the Chinese market caused the Opium Wars in 1839 to 1842. Opium, which is addictive while each dose is for one-time use, was highly profitable from the start due to the sale of lots of doses per user. But Big Opium was the beginnings of Big Pharma, not of Big Gun.

In the 1700s, Big Opium was already similar enough to Big Pharma to lobby for recognizably similar things such as the introduction of the concept of psychopathy in early psychiatry. Big Opium alleged that people who opposed the opium trade were callous and unemotional towards opium addicts and their withdrawal symptoms, and early animal rights "philosophers" wrote metaphors for opium trade critics into their own writings about animal abusers. Déjà vu, allegations that critics of psychiatric medication "stigmatize mental illness"?

Big Gun became really big in the 1800s, with the increased use of artillery units that were usually destroyed during wars limiting re-use and therefore increasing sales. In the late 1800s to early 1900s, Big Gun used its power to lobby for international conventions banning the picking of guns from fallen enemies though a dead soldier does not suffer from the loss of a gun and weapons given to soldiers in the military lack any affection value for their families (and is not permitted to be testamented to their families anyway). This further reduced re-use and increased sales of guns and Big Gun profits. That made Big Gun the Big Gun it is today.

The democratic peace theory has no sense of scale of political differences[]

The democratic peace theory sometimes claim that the American Civil War does not contradict it because the Confederate States were not democratic enough. However, that contradicts the lower bar mentioned above that considers the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth democratic enough to create peace. The difference between the Confederate States and present-day democracy is not bigger than the difference between Soviet type communism and Maoism, as Soviet communism retained parts of Marxism's notion that industrial capitalism must come before communism while Maoism claimed that communism could be introduced directly into a pre-industrial farmer society. And yet democratic peace theory dismisses the difference between Soviet communism and Maoism as "insignificant" when it claims that wars between countries following Soviet-type communism and countries following Maoism "disproves" the political similarity peace theory's example of a communist peace theory. The democratic peace theory contradicts itself.

Dictators that passed democratic elections as useful idiots[]

Big Gun profits from lobbying for wars and making it look like so-called "evil" governments started the wars on their own, while restricting warfare by so-called "good" governments to only wars against so-called "evil" ones to hide corporate control. But this means that the dictators that the corporations have the highest success rate in lobbying for wars by are the dumbest dictators that are easily tricked into starting wars that they will lose. This creates cracks in the corporate facade of "non-involvement".

Why dictators who once won democratic elections start the dumbest wars[]

There is a recurring trend that dictators who initially rose to power through democratic elections and later abolished democracy start the most boneheaded wars that they cannot possibly win. Both Hitler and Mussolini reached power in that way, and they both started idiotic wars that they lost. They both conducted their military operations in thoughtless ways that were total logistic disasters to their countries. Putin is a present-day example, he initially reached power by being elected president and he sends his soldiers in the most unstrategic ways imaginable where the Ukrainian military can easily shoot the Russian soldiers en masse.

Other kinds of dictatorships, where the dictator never passed a democratic election, are generally more selective about what wars they start. They rarely start wars as impossible to win as Hitler, Mussolini and most recently Putin did. Does China launch military invasions as unstrategic as the Russian invasion of Ukraine? No. Nor did Stalin and Franco, neither of whom ever passed a polling place on the road to power. When it comes to the stupidity of wars, dictators who were once democratically elected are in a stupidity class of their own and not simply representative of "dictatorial warlikeness".

One mechanism that can explain the stupidity of dictators who were once democratically elected is that democratic elections are made to only let idiots through, meaning that those who ever passed a democratic election are always idiots even if they later become dictators. When one selection process have eliminated all candidates with a particular feature (in this case intelligence), adding further selection processes can never get candidates with that feature out of the remaining candidates. This is the same point that peer review misses when it self-contradictingly downplays its problems by saying that "it is just one part of the process" at the same time as it claims to be necessary.

The question "if the reason why a certain subset of dictators start stupid wars is because they were democratically elected, why do democracies not start stupid wars against other democracies?" misses both the point of corporate lobbyism working to maintain a facade (as explained above) and the point of market size. Big Gun needs an enemy to sell weapons to wars against, but all countries fighting all countries would restrict the flow of weapons. It is far more profitable for Big Gun to have most of the world on one side that does not militarily infight and just one or two countries to fight against, since that allows free sales of weapons to militaries throughout the majority of the world minus only a country or two. That is what made Russia's invasion of Ukraine so profitable for Big Gun's weapon sales to Western countries, and the reason why multinational weapon corporations based in the United States may have lobbied in Russia for the invasion of Ukraine.

In that case, it "helped" that Putin is an idiot who once won a democratic election. It did not help the world, of course, but it helped Big Gun's profit. It would be much harder for Big Gun to lobby like that in China, where the lack of democratic elections mean that an individual too smart to be tricked by Big Gun to start an idiotic war can potentially rise to power at every death of a prominent party member. The fact that the current Chinese regime is not in the brain category that can maintain civilization, as shown by it not doing anything about China's fatal digitalization does not contradict this, as a possibility of competent brains gaining power is not a guarantee that only competent brains will gain power. It is still possible that competence can take over China from within, a possibility not present in Russia, though no country that is part of capitalist trade networks have the self-correcting mechanisms of feudalism that actively eliminate incompetence as explained here.

It is also possible that there are intermediate brain categories smart enough to not be tricked into obvious war traps but not smart enough to see the dangers of relying on exponentially increasing infrastructural complexity. Capitalist lobbying for maximal stupidity means that not even such intermediate brains are allowed to reach power within the election bureaucratic system. Only the total idiots get through.

The fact that the Russian regime uses euphemisms for the war in Ukraine instead of honestly calling it a war of conquest is shown by history to be a sign of Russian decadence and a similarity to current American euphemisms for their wars in other countries. Real early stage civilizations characterized by Glubb as the age of pioneers honestly admit that their wars are wars of conquest, without euphemisms. They also make their own weapons, as opposed to relying on the military-industrial complex of the old civilization by smuggling as Russia does. Real pioneer civilizations also have very limited trade from the start so that sanctions barely have any effect on them, they do not begin with significant trade to then be hit by sanctions as current Russia. Pioneer civilizations do not share the definitions of the sex-obsessed discourse in the old civilizations at all, in contrast to Russia which copies a part of Western sex debate that claims to oppose Pride but mirrors Pride's definitions of "LGBTQ" as explained here.

Have malfunctioning computers already made the world nuke-free?[]

Since more complex computer systems are more vulnerable to failure from within and the problem is rapidly and exponentially worsening, digitalization in the name of "security" can make the digitalized systems so safe even authorized personnel cannot use them. While increasingly complex authorization and authentication make the systems safer from being hacked and used by others through cyber attacks, it also increases the risk that malfunctioning subsystems required for authorization make it impossible even for the authorized personnel to "prove" to the computer that they are the authorized personnel and not hackers. If the system becomes complex enough, different subsystems in the computer system itself that were created to add more layers of security may mistake each other for cybercriminals, making the system lock itself completely so that not even authorized troubleshooters can do anything about it without being mistaked for hackers and blocked out too.

Given the very high security priority to keep the unauthorized from using nuclear weapons, the authentication of those systems are likely to be among the most overcomplicated computer systems today. Since overcomplexification of computer systems have caused shortages of components for components in an increasingly problematic chain that are noticeable even in the civilian sector since spring 2021, and the most "secure" systems in the world can be expected to have hit the wall even earlier since complexity is the problem, this theory is capable by a good margin to explain why no nuclear weapons have been used during the increasing conflicts since early 2022. The explanation is that all countries with significant nuclear arsenals today have already became unable to use them due to computer complexity blockages, making the world functionally nuclear dearmed.

Advertisement