US Chimps Go After ISIS Chimps to Retake Bananas

The word “war” has an awe-inspiring affect on people.  “It’s time for our nation to go to war.”  “Our nation is at war!”  “We are at war with (insert various).”

The word has been made a euphemism that associates ideas like tradition, greatness, endeavor, glory, majesty, history, achievement, victory, and patriotism with something that is ridiculously stupid and primitive.

What is “war”?

It’s when a group of chimps gangs up on a smaller group of chimps, kills some of them, and takes their stuff.

study in Current Biology finds that the closest primate relative to humans, chimpanzees, engage in “war-like” behavior to gain resources.

Groups of chimps, the study finds, go on the prowl, and when a group encounters another group with which it is fairly evenly matched, “the patrollers will either call loudly as they retreat immediately back toward their home territory, or a brief, indecisive battle will ensue.”

They don’t fully attack because they know there’s a chance they’ll lose.  Hence, we are treated to decades of the chimps controlling the US corporate state ceaselessly screeching and screaming at countries that they can’t really fight because they might partially lose to, like Russia, nuclear North Korea, China, Iran, etc.

“If, on the other hand, the patrolling party [of chimps] greatly outnumbers the strangers, its members will generally attack.”

That’s because the big group knows a little, weak group of chimps can’t stop them, and therefore the big group stands to gain significantly by attacking the smaller group and taking its stuff.  Hence, the USA has constantly, throughout its history, attacked much smaller, weaker groups (like Africans, Native Americans, Cubans, Haitians, Filipinos, Nicaraguans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Indonesians, East Timorese, Guatemalans, Bolivians, Nicaraguans, Colombians, Salvadorans, Venezuelans, Panamanians, Haitians, Grenadians, Iranians [1953, 1982], Iraqis, Afghans, Syrians, Palestinians, and Libyans, to name a few) and gained from conquering land, raw materials, and US-repressed labor, as well as from the terrorizing mental affect the shocking displays of savagery have on other vulnerable groups.


Reconnaissance Prowl

Humans have added to gang-violence profiteering by creating a vast industry of making tools for carrying out gang attacks.  Thus, the more gang attacks are perpetrated, the more that industry, particularly its owners, benefit.  This is what Dwight Eisenhower, after vastly expanding it, referred to as the “military-industrial-congressional complex”, since congress members also benefit from helping out the industry by voting “Yes” for more gang attacks, as they just did again last week regarding further US arming/training of terrorists to attack UN member state Syria.

Humans have also perfected the art of having other people do the actual gang fighting and dying for them.  They send other people’s kids away to force open foreign markets at gunpoint while they sit back in air conditioned offices and regal estates and rake in the resultant dough.

Also unlike chimps, humans have found a way to direct gang violence profits into the pockets of only a tiny, tiny fraction of the gang’s overall population, while the people who finance the violence, the taxpayers, lose their meager freedoms.  (The USA is about the most impoverished industrialized country, by some measures a “third world” country, despite also being the world’s richest country, thanks to the US constitution having been set up by and for the benefit of a tiny wealthy elite.  But even if gang attacks against defenseless groups did benefit the US as a whole, so what?  If child pornography was good for the economy, it doesn’t mean we should pursue it.  Car accidents benefit the economy.  Doesn’t mean we should try to have more car accidents.  Hitler was a shot in the arm for the German economy.  Enough said.)

Oil Price recently documented that the USA is trying to target ISIS’s ability to profit from oil sales.

However, the USA will not be targeting Saudi Arabia’s ability to profit from oil sales.  Rather, a handful of opportunists in the USA will continue to censor the 9/11 report pages on Saudi Arabia, while at the same time profiting from sponsorship of and partnership with that very regime.  The USA has an ironclad policy of regime continuity (as opposed to regime change) towards the head and hand-chopping, blogger-torturing, woman-targeting Saudi theocratic dictatorship.

The difference between Saudi Arabia and ISIS is that Saudi Arabia is a US ally.

Here’s Ron Paul:  “Under last week’s authorization bill, the president [Obama] would have authority to train 5,000 fighters in Saudi Arabia for insertion into the civil war in Syria. … That Saudi Arabia is considered a suitable place to train Syria’s future leaders must be some kind of sick joke. While ISIS was beheading two American journalists … the repressive [US-backed] Saudi theocracy was beheading dozens of its own citizens… If we want to stop radical terrorists from operating in Syria and Iraq, how about telling our ally Saudi Arabia to stop funding and training them? For that matter, how about the US government stops arming and training the various rebel groups in Syria and finally ends its 24 year US war on Iraq [in which the USA has murdered some 3.3 million Iraqis].”

If we think the USA wants to attack ISIS because the corporate CEOs who overwhelmingly dictate and control US state power are concerned and are designing a plan to save people, we are sadly gullible and wholly ignorant of their ugly history, as we are supposed to be (hence, corporate media).

If we were exposed to our actual history, we would quickly see that the people who control US state power are every bit as bad as anyone else (or worse, according to Martin Luther King Jr, facts, etc.).  We would then realize that our carefully cultivated supremacist, state-serving, self-flattering ideology is, as in every case of it in history, preposterous and deadly.  Then it would be much more difficult to convince us, the taxpayers, to keep passively or actively accepting and funding US gang-violence against weaker groups.

Someone recently said to me, in these general terms, “but we need to destroy ISIS because they are killing children!”  I said, what are the 700,000 Iraqi children knowingly (and likely intentionally) murdered by US sanctions?  Chopped liver?  No?  So, should we destroy the USA by bombing it, since the USA is killing children?  (I say no.)  You can go on with this logic forever: should we bomb Israel into destruction since it came into existence by using rape as a weapon, lining children up against walls and machine-gunning them for fun, etc.?  Should we do same to US again, since it came into existence in the same way?  Should we also bomb Israel into destruction for using US weapons to constantly pile up mountains of corpses of Palestinian children?  No, no, no.

And if we think the USA should again break international law, because it can’t be stopped, and attack ISIS regardless of actual US™ intentions, because maybe the result will be to save people from ISIS, we are again ignorant of our own history.  The USA destroys every country it attacks: Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya.  The USA has reduced that entire region to nothing but failed states, and the chaos, along with direct US support for the terrorists, has created a new group, ISIS, just as US support for terrorists in the 70s, 80s, and 90s helped create Al Qaeda.

If we want to “do something” to make things better, then we can’t attack because that makes things much, much worse in virtually every example.  The US government’s own studies find that US foreign interventions increase terrorism (not to mention they are terrorism – among the worst examples of it in human history).

If we really want to decrease violence in the world (as well as protect ourselves), we have to work towards peaceful reduction of the US empire, so US elites can’t keep attacking and ravaging smaller groups all the time.

But if you still think “we” should go kill and maybe torture some folks, you should get your own lazy ass over there and show ’em what you’re made of!  Don’t be a coward!  Go for it!  ISIS wants a piece of you!  “You” (if you conflate yourself with the state) have been murdering and repressing millions of Muslims for decades, and a few of them are itching for a chance to hit back.

Get out there and take back the bananas!

(Obviously, we have a child army of the poor in this country.  Many kids join the gang because their other options are worse than possibly getting blown up or shot.  If we really want to stop gang violence, we should create circumstances in which kids don’t have to join the state/corporate terrorist army.)

Robert Barsocchini is an investigative journalist and writer for the film industry.  Here is his blog.  Also see his free e-book, Whatever it Takes – Hillary Clinton’s Record of Support for War and other Depravities.  Click here to follow Robert and his UK-based colleague, Dean Robinson, on Twitter.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Bev
    A Pale Blue Dot

    This excerpt from Sagan’s book Pale Blue Dot was inspired by an image taken, at Sagan’s suggestion, by Voyager 1 on February 14, 1990. As the spacecraft left our planetary neighborhood for the fringes of the solar system, engineers turned it around for one last look at its home planet. Voyager 1 was about 6.4 billion kilometers (4 billion miles) away, and approximately 32 degrees above the ecliptic plane, when it captured this portrait of our world. Caught in the center of scattered light rays (a result of taking the picture so close to the Sun), Earth appears as a tiny point of light, a crescent only 0.12 pixel in size.

    The Pale Blue Dot of Earth

    Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there–on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

    The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

    Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

    The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

    It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.

    — Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot, 1994

    • Bev

      We need to use Carl Sagan’s humane dealings with one another as shown above as a guiding light, and resist its opposite, the undermining of Democracy, as seen below:

      Michael Parenti on Globalisation, Terrorism, and Conspiracy

      “In societies that worship money and success, the losers become objects of scorn. Those who work the hardest for the least are called lazy. Those forced to live in substandard housing are thought to be the authors of substandard lives. Those who do not finish high school or cannot afford to go to college are considered deficient or inept.

      No system in history has been more relentless in battering down ancient and fragile cultures, devouring the resources of whole regions, pulverizing centuries-old practices in a matter of years, and standardizing the varieties of human experience.

      Official Washington cannot tell the American people that the real purpose of its gargantuan military expenditures and belligerent interventions is to make the world safe for General Motors, General Electric, General Dynamics, and all the other generals.

      The worst forms of tyranny, or certainly the most successful ones, are not those we rail against but those that so insinuate themselves into the imagery of our consciousness, and the fabric of our lives, as not to be perceived as tyranny.

      The guiding principle of ruling elites was–and still is: when change threatens to rule, then the rules are changed.”

      Michael Parenti

    • Robert Barsocchini

      Interesting that you post that. I think about that all the time.

  • What REALLY frosts me is for every single thing to help low income Americans, the Republicans say it must be paid for by offsets to something else.

    But when it comes to $$$ for more war, they bi-partisan vote with the Democrats who are the fake anti-war party.

    But what really REALLY frosts me is the MAINSTREAM MEDIA (which by now we all know is a branch of government/corporations/1%) because they brainwash us with the words “AUSTERITY” and “FISCAL CLIFF” but in the leadup into spending more money on war the media makes sure first that “AUSTERITY” disappears from the “news” for a while then they conveniently forget “AUSTERITY” and “FISCAL CLIFF” and the Republicans claiming they need offsets for all government spending, and then no one talks about it.

    As soon as this latest bipartisan “war” spending is over, the media will again say “AUSTERITY” and “FISCAL CLIFF” for the next round of spending on low income Americans.

  • sellinpitchforks

    So we have evolved enough to become consciously aware of our own primitive state. Chimpanzees have also shown a variety of personality characteristics similar to humans, including individualism, pacifism and altruism in lesser degrees. How do isolated pacifists and altruists (betas) stop the greater chimpout (alphas) from occurring?
    Well by getting together and declaring WAR of course. 😉

    • Bev

      Following is example of aggression causing its own undoing, with a resulting more pacifist culture taught by females:

      The Baboon Troop that Mellowed Out After the Alpha Males Died

      I got an email last night from a former student (thanks Hendrick!) who wanted to let me know that Stanford’s Robert Sapolsky had done a WNYC radio show called “New Normal?” (listen here) where he described his 2004 article with Lisa Share on a troop of baboons — which became more peaceful (or at least less nasty) after the alpha males died. It is amazing stuff, and more evidence that being a jerk and having power go hand in hand. Here is a link to the original academic article ( which I was able to download for free). It is short and quite accessible, and just astounding stuff: Here is how I described it in The No Asshole Rule:

      Biologists Robert Sapolsky and Lisa Share have followed a troop of wild baboons in Kenya for over 20 years, starting in 1978. Sapolsky and Share called them “The Garbage Dump Troop” because they got much of their food from a garbage pit at a tourist lodge. But not every baboon was allowed to eat from the pit in the early 1980s: The aggressive, high status males in the troop refused to allow lower status males, or any females, to eat the garbage. Between 1983 and 1986, infected meat from the dump led to the deaths of 46% of the adult males in the troop. The biggest and meanest males died off. As in other baboon troops studied, before they died, these top-ranking males routinely bit, bullied, and chased males of similar and lower status, and occasionally directed their aggression at females.
      But when the top ranking males died-off in the mid-1980s, aggression by the (new) top baboons dropped dramatically, with most aggression occurring between baboons of similar rank, and little of it directed toward lower-status males, and none at all directed at females. Troop members also spent a larger percentage of the time grooming, sat closer together than in the past, and hormone samples indicated that the lowest status males experienced less stress than underlings in other baboon troops. Most interestingly, these effects persisted at least through the late 1990’s, well after all the original “kinder” males had died-off. Not only that, when adolescent males who grew up in other troops joined the “Garbage Dump Troop,” they too engaged in less aggressive behavior than in other baboon troops. As Sapolsky put it “We don’t understand the mechanism of transmission… but the jerky new guys are obviously learning: We don’t do things like that around here.” So, at least by baboon standards, the garbage dump troop developed and enforced what I would call a “no asshole rule.”


      A Pacific Culture among Wild Baboons: Its Emergence and Transmission
      Robert M Sapolsky mail,
      Lisa J Share
      Published: April 13, 2004
      DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020106


      Reports exist of transmission of culture in nonhuman primates. We examine this in a troop of savanna baboons studied since 1978. During the mid-1980s, half of the males died from tuberculosis; because of circumstances of the outbreak, it was more aggressive males who died, leaving a cohort of atypically unaggressive survivors. A decade later, these behavioral patterns persisted. Males leave their natal troops at adolescence; by the mid-1990s, no males remained who had resided in the troop a decade before. Thus, critically, the troop’s unique culture was being adopted by new males joining the troop. We describe (a) features of this culture in the behavior of males, including high rates of grooming and affiliation with females and a “relaxed” dominance hierarchy; (b) physiological measures suggesting less stress among low-ranking males; (c) models explaining transmission of this culture; and (d) data testing these models, centered around treatment of transfer males by resident females.

      • sellinpitchforks

        A nice follow-up to article as well. 🙂