Search the Community

I am a psychology major undergraduate and have a couple days to apply for a job/internship at the Centre for Cognitive Work and Safety Analysis which is a part of the Department of Defence Science and Technology, Australia. Australia is an ally of the United States of America and fought beside them in all the major wars. Australia is a Commonwealth so if Britain declares war, Australia must contribute to the war effort. Australia is actively involved in the war in Afghanistan and the war against ISIS. Australia is also part of the Korean war. My duty might involve improving the displays of fighter aircraft which would directly effect bombing missions in the middle east. Other duties I could be involved in is research, transcribing, conducting interviews and analysis. This internship would last for 4 months maximum. There are many benefits to getting this internship. There are not really any other jobs in the market for students that would challenge my research and cognitive skills. I'm thinking of becoming a neuropsychologist so it's really important, especially when I go for PhD (In Australia it is required). Also, the pay is good and I have no shame for taking taxpayer money while I am young. Also, the centre is literally in the same suburb that I live in, and halfway between my house and my university. Also, it could teach me something about the psychology of those in the military which is very unique knowledge for a libertarian to have. If it were not for the initiation of force, there wouldn't be many better jobs that I could be doing at the moment. While what I'm doing might be directly working for the military, but morally speaking, it's not necessarily different to other work I could be doing because my taxes would go towards the military anyway. Violation of the NAP is wrong, but what I could be doing could help me prevent violations of the NAP more than actually violating the NAP. Also, if I were at any time uncomfortable, I could quit. Still, it bothers me that what I would be doing would be directly contributing to the murder of innocent people. How could I find a balance in this scenario? (did you forget it's valentines day?)

Hello! I have been listening to the show for a while now, more or less at times. Always thought provoking. I'm currently facing the "right and duty" of conscription, not going to the army that's for sure. I have decided to work for a non profit for a year to get that sorted. Anyone else from here? Looking forward to contributing more to this community! Thanks for reading!

Since Syria, we have been talking about how Trump is either being pressured or converted by ((( Jared Kushner ))) and his ((( Neo-Cuck ))) friends. Since North Korea, we have been completely perplexed as to why Trump is playing with fire. I (and many others, e.g. Bill Mitchell) have pointed out that Trump has a history of being cold and calculating, during his negotiations. During his campaign, he often did jaw-dropping things. Many reacted by calling him a mad-man, only to find out weeks later what the original plan was. I think that today, we may have some insight as to what the geo-political chess was about. By agitating North Korea, Trump has created a situation where South Korea really needs the US military. CNBC just announced that Trump is now threatening to terminate the free trade deal with South Korea if Seoul doesn't pay for US defense. BOOM. Art of The Deal, baby! So do you guys still think Trump is a mad-man? Or can we finally admit that Trump is a methodical strategic genius?

I read over at the Ron Paul Liberty Report, that there is a bill active that will allow president Trump to attack Iran using the military to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, all without the approval of congress. I'm fine with the temporary immigration halt, but shouldn't this, along with Trump wanting to "rebuild" the military, be worrying at all? I'm pro-Trump, and am glad about all he's done since he was inaugurated, but does anyone have any logical reasons why Trump won't carry on like the previous administrations and invade? If so, please share. Source: http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/pre-emptive-attack-iran-bill-active-in-us-house

In a recent podcast Stefan mentioned that soldiers on the front lines were better off attacking, where they stood a chance of surviving (or die as heroes and earn their families honour and pensions), as opposed to retreating, where they would have more likely be shot by their own officers (and lose the honour and pension for their families). And it occurred to me that in the infantry (at least in the days of WWII) the soldiers would be armed with rifles, which were designed to be accurate at long distances, whereas the officers were armed with pistols, which are only somewhat accurate at short distances. Just thought this was interesting…

Google has been buying up robotics companies, including military robotics producer Boston Dynamics. I've always found it interesting that the corporate motto for google is: "Don't Be Evil"

hello hello! So this week marks the first week that I begin my journey out of the military and into anything that has the least to do with the government or military as possible. When you begin this journey as a military member you are bombarded with a mile high stack of papers to fill out and endless briefings from government agencies to recruit you into their blood soaked ranks. During one of the national guard/reserve briefings the briefer said to us "I was deployed to afganistan and iraq to kill people. And now i do this. It is disorienting to go from killing people to recruiting people into the reserves". I could feel my eyes widen and my heart started to race. Then the dude stared at me for like 10 seconds straight whilst continuing on with his designated rant about protecting our country and the such. I began to study his mannerisms and checked to see if there was any shred of a true self left inside his empty gaze. nope. I couldn't see anything. Emotionless. Steady hands. direct and sturdy voice. Stupid jokes about sports teams. At the end of his briefing he went around the room and asked if there were any good reasons to not join the reserves and take the (blood funded) benefits. And oh my god, this was my moment to speak the truth. I had about 10 seconds to respond and I froze. confusion. tense muscles. racing heart. I felt like a cornered rat and all i could do in the moment was blurt out "EVERYTHING". Then his boss which was evaluating him on his performance stood up and said "what do you mean by that?" and i said " well, what i mean by that is that it wasn't my choice from the start. Like it wasn't something that was in my heart. It was more like inflicted on me through government schools and my parents". They both stared in silence at me for a solid 4 seconds then moved to the next person. I wanted so badly to say well one good reason is that those benifits you listed are funded by theft, which is immoral, but just didnt have the balls to do it. Mabe it was the right thing because my subconscious knew what kind of person i was speaking to. What do you you guys think about my reaction/ how i handled the situation?

Having perfected moral, ethical behavior in humans the military is moving into more technological pastures. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/182147-us-military-begins-research-into-moral-ethical-robots-to-stave-off-skynet-like-apocalypse

...and he didn't even tell me. So it's my wife's brother and we're fairly close (or I thought so). I just heard from someone else that he signed up for the army and I'm aghast. Partly at the fact that I think the military is immoral and partly at the fact that he never mentioned it to me. He's in his early 20s, I'm about 10 yrs older and I was in the military. I got out a few years back because I realized it was evil although I have only in the past couple months been introduced to anarchy and started talking about how taxation is theft. Since I'd rate myself as the most obvious person in his life to talk to about this and he didn't I'm assuming our relationship means basically nothing to him. I'm not crazy for skipping family dinner tonight, right? I think he's going for a job with a clearance in which case I may get interviewed by gov types. Would it be wrong to try to get him disqualified from the job? He was physically abused by a religious authority type over an extended period and I honestly think he shouldn't join even if the military were somehow a moral entity.

Really I have no idea, I really like read your thoughts. Thanks!! Héctor

Great book by Chalmers Johnson emplaining how and why republics turn from republics to empires. In particuallar America.