Posted originally on Jun 15, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Is War a Contagion?
World War I is certainly a classic case of war emerging as a contagion. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand triggered a chain reaction of alliances pulling countries into the conflict. That seems like contagion through formal treaties. Yet, there is also the spread of revolutions. The American Revolution saw Washington being inaugurated in 1789, while the French Revolution erupted. Then in 1848, another revolution in France inspired uprisings across Europe. The 1848 revolutions are another example of how ideas and uprisings spread from one nation to another. This is more about ideological influence rather than direct conflict spread.
But not all wars spread. Some stay localized. The Iran-Iraq War in the 80s didn’t escalate beyond the two countries. So why is that? Factors such as alliances, geography, or international intervention can contribute to conflicts. Economic interdependence is another point. Countries tied by trade might avoid war because it’s costly. That has been my point that sanctions promote war, whereas free trade inspires cooperation. Sanctions have not worked on Russia, and they have only galvanized Iran and North Korea. They deter peace and build a wall between hardened adversaries. The European Community is often cited as an example of how economic ties can reduce conflicts. Still, it then formalized a centralized government that imposed centralized laws on migrants, which has divided countries by ignoring their concerns for law and order. But does that always work? Maybe not, but it’s a factor.
Then there’s nationalism and ethnic ties. Yugoslavia’s breakup led to multiple wars because ethnic groups in neighboring areas were affected. That’s contagion through shared identities and tensions spilling over. NATO intervened and bombed Serbia simply because they were pro-Russian. NATO refused to honor the Minsk Agreement in Ukraine because the Donbas was pro-Russian, demonstrating that NATO is by no means impartial or ethical.
The United Nations is just as much a failure as the League of Nations, largely due to internal biases and ethical corruption. The Cold War involved proxy wars but avoided direct superpower clashes, maintaining a semblance of containment for image purposes. Every war that the US got itself into, thanks to the Neocons since World War II, has always been about Russia.
They might also be looking for ways to prevent war contagion. Highlighting factors such as diplomacy, economic ties, and international cooperation could be beneficial. Emphasizing that while contagion happens, it’s not inevitable, and there are mechanisms to stop it.
In conclusion, war can spread like a contagion under certain conditions, but various factors can contain it only to a point. The idea that war spreads like a contagion holds significant weight in historical analysis, although it’s not a universal or an inevitable law. Several mechanisms demonstrate how conflict can leap from one nation to another, and that MUST be our concern right now between Israel vs Iran, when Iran is by no means standing alone, and the confrontation by the West is in motion against Russia, China, and North Korea, providing incentives to support Iran.
Alliance Systems & Entangling Commitments, as in NATO, are more of a threat of creating a global war contagion than a deterrence. Treaties (defensive, offensive, or mutual aid) can draw neutral countries into a conflict when one signatory is attacked. This is arguably the most direct form of contagion and the very design of NATO. World War I is the quintessential example of how NATO threatens the very future of Europe and the world. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand triggered Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum to Serbia. Russia mobilized to support Serbia, Germany mobilized to support Austria-Hungary and declared war on Russia, France mobilized to help Russia, Germany invaded Belgium to attack France, pulling in Britain due to its guarantee of Belgian neutrality. A localized Balkan conflict engulfed Europe and its surrounding regions within weeks. The EU hopes to drag the United States and Canada into their dream war with Russia, which has no benefit to Canada or the United States other than making Bill Gates jump for joy by reducing the population.
The Ideological or Revolutionary element like overthrowing monarchy, communism against capitalism, Protestant vs Catholic, or Sunni vs Shite, or Islam vs Jeudiam. Successful revolutions or ideological movements can inspire and directly support similar uprisings in neighboring or ideologically aligned countries. Fear of such a spread can also trigger preemptive interventions. Countless examples can be found in the American and French Revolutions, the Cold War, the Revolutions of 1848, and the various religious wars, from pagan vs. Christian to the Protestant Reformation against Catholics, which even led to the English Civil War. The coinage of England displayed the image of Cromwell wearing a laurel wreath (The king is dead, long live the King).
Even the rise of Marxism with the 1917 Russian Revolution inspired the German Revolution in 1918, which overthrew the government and ushered in the Weimar Republic. That, too, ended in hyperinflation.
Spillover Effects:
Active conflicts create destabilizing forces that inevitably cross borders. Look at the Refugee Crisis. Mass displacement strains resources and can alter demographics/politics in neighboring states. Allowing immigration during an economic decline will always spark civil unrest, which can result in revolution and the overthrow of governments.
Rebels, terrorists, or militias may use neighboring territory as safe havens, drawing those countries into the conflict. That has always been a common practice, as in Vietnam. The Vietnam War (1955-1975) spilled over significantly into neighboring countries, primarily due to the Ho Chi Minh Trail (a vital North Vietnamese supply route) and US efforts to disrupt it, along with political instability in the region. Thailand was a crucial US ally and provided major airbases for US operations over Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia.
Economic Disruption has also played a key role. Trade routes are severed, markets collapse, and resources become scarce, affecting neighboring countries. This has often resulted in border skirmishes, accidental incursions, or attacks on shared ethnic groups, which can ignite new fronts.
The Syrian Civil War spilled significantly into Iraq and impacted Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey through refugees, Kurdish issues, and ISIS operations. The Rwandan Genocide spilled into Zaire (DRC), contributing directly to the devastating First and Second Congo Wars.
Even in ancient times, one need only look at the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage. While Rome and Carthage were the principal antagonists, the Punic Wars were truly Mediterranean-wide conflicts. They involved extensive campaigns across multiple continents (Europe, Africa), drew in major regional powers (Macedon, Syracuse, Numidia), forced countless smaller tribes and cities to choose sides, and reshaped the political map far beyond the immediate territories of the two main rivals. The “spillover” was fundamental to the nature and scale of these wars. Rome issued its first gold coin to impress other Italian city-states to side with them.
The Danger of Victory – Power Vacuums:
A major conflict can weaken a regional power or create a power vacuum. This is what NATO and the EU are doing, sacrificing Ukraine to reduce Russia in hopes of conquest. Here, the EU is deliberately promoting war against Russia to create an opportunity to settle old scores, grab territory, and expand its influence, believing that Europe can rise again to its former glory.
During World War II, Italy’s invasion of Greece and the Soviet Union’s invasion of Finland were opportunistic moves made while the major powers (Germany, France/UK) were focused elsewhere. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire created power vacuums that drew in multiple regional and European powers, who carved up the Middle East.
Nationalism & Ethnic Kin:
Conflict involving a specific ethnic group can ignite tensions or interventionist desires in neighboring states where the same group lives (or where a rival group lives). Hitler invaded Poland because the carving up of Germany after World War I left the Germans stranded in Poland.
The breakup of Yugoslavia saw conflicts spread partly due to the presence of Serb populations in Croatia and Bosnia, drawing in Serbia, and Croat/Bosniak populations drawing in support from Croatia. Albanian populations in Kosovo and Macedonia are also linked to conflicts. This is the core issue in Ukraine since the Donbas and Crimea are ethnic Russians, not Ukrainians, but the EU and US Neocons do not care because they want war with Russia.
Religious Conflict:
The most significant danger that we have currently is that this war between Iran and Israel is perceived as a religious war. With the massive influx of Muslims into Europe, the danger is that we see major civil unrest in all the major cities throughout Europe as this war is seen through ethnic/religious lines. We find that religion becomes the excuse for civil unrest and war when the economy turns down. We saw that with the Protestant Reformation, once the ECM turned down from 1516.95.
The Protestant Reformation spread through a powerful combination of technological innovation, political ambition, social discontent, religious fervor, and adaptable ideas. It is widely believed that the invention of the printing press facilitated this movement, as Johannes Gutenberg’s invention (c. 1440) revolutionized communication, allowing for the mass distribution of ideas. Pamphlets, sermons, cartoons (often crude and effective), and crucially, Martin Luther’s 95 Theses and subsequent writings were printed cheaply and in massive quantities.
Translations of the Bible into German (Luther), English (Tyndale), French, and other languages also finally allowed laypeople direct access to scripture, bypassing the Latin-literate clergy and fueling critiques of Church practices. Luther’s German Bible became a bestseller. Many rulers in the Holy Roman Empire saw the Reformation as an opportunity to seize Church lands and wealth as the economy was turning down very hard. Kings like Henry VIII of England were dead broke and debasing their coinage. The Reformation rhetoric that called for a break with Rome prevented his bankruptcy. Gustav Vasa of Sweden used the Reformation to consolidate national power, confiscate Church property, and reduce papal influence. The powerful merchant cities, such as Strasbourg, Zurich, Geneva, and Nuremberg, often embraced reform, which was also profitable. They now controlled local churches, ended payments to Rome, and aligned with the rising merchant classes who favored reform and banking. Urban settings were also hotbeds for the exchange of new ideas. This is where history draws the beginning of capitalism, as Christians could not become bankers, rejecting the Sin of Usury.
Luther’s ideas provided the compelling religious message that resonated with existing grievances. Ambitious rulers and city councils provided the essential political protection and institutionalization. Other reformers adapted the message to different contexts, ensuring its relevance across diverse regions. Social and economic discontent created fertile ground. Together, these factors created an unstoppable wave that permanently fractured Western Christendom.
We see the same incentives behind Constantine claiming he saw a vision in the sky and painted a cross on the shield of his legions, who were outnumbered 2:1, because the legions of Magentius were Christian. Magnentius built the first Christian church in Rome. With his victory, Constantine entered Rome on October 29th, 312 AD, and staged a grand entrance into the city. Constantine did everything possible to pretend it was a widespread jubilation, but the people did not trust him.
The fall hid Maxentius’ scepter to deprive Constantine of his glorious victory. Constantine ordered Maxentius’ body to be fished out of the Tiber River, where he had drowned, and decapitated the corpse, parading his head on a pike through the streets of Rome for all to see. Constantine was not baptized until his deathbed. He continued to issue pagan coinage, not Christian.
Constantine certainly did not patronize Christianity alone. After gaining victory in the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 AD, he constructed in 315 AD a triumphal arch that still stands by the Colosseum. —The Arch of Constantine. The arch is decorated with images of the goddess Victoria. At the time of its dedication, sacrifices were made to gods such as Apollo, Diana, and Hercules. Absent from the Arch are any depictions of Christian symbolism whatsoever.
This is the ONLY coin that Constantine issued with any Christian symbol. This was issued briefly once, in 327-328 AD, and is quite rare. All his other coins are standard Pagan type issues, even years after his victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, which took place between the Roman Emperors Constantine I and Maxentius on October 28, 312 AD.
Constantine’s approach to pagan temple wealth was complex and not a simple confiscation. He “redirected” significant resources from pagan institutions to support mainly his own projects. Constantine did not issue a blanket decree stripping all pagan temples of their wealth across the empire. Many temples continued to function, especially in the West, during his reign. He did seize temple wealth famously using their treasures (gold, statues, precious materials) stripped from major pagan temples in the Eastern provinces (Greece, Asia Minor) to fund and adorn his new capital, Constantinople. This was presented as a transfer of imperial glory, not purely religious plunder, but it undeniably drained wealth from pagan centers. The temples in the West escaped and continued to practice compared to those in the East.
Local vs Spreading Conflicts:
A war is UNLIKELY to spread when the issues are purely local and do not involve ethnic differences that extend to surrounding nations. This includes religion. The Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) remained largely bilateral despite its scale and regional impact. The Falklands War was also contained. The same can be said of the English Civil War (which reached a pivotal point with the execution of King Charles I in January 1649), which did not directly spread as a large-scale military conflict to other sovereign nations like France, Spain, or the Dutch Republic. However, it significantly impacted and involved other parts of the British Isles and had international repercussions:
War & Contagions:
War demonstrably can and has spread from country to country through mechanisms resembling contagion, like a disease. This has often been facilitated, particularly through alliances, ideological spillover, physical spillover effects, opportunism, and ethnic or nationalist ties. Our greatest threat with this war between Iran and Israel is that this becomes religious and spreads, especially in Europe, as a clash between Islam and Judaism, as well as Christianity, from the militants who have flooded into Europe.
COMMENT: The next moron in charge of nato… Rutte… with a psycho propaganda quote: “invest now, or learn Russian later”
Let’s rephrase this with a counter slogan “let’s learn Russian now, let’s listen to Russia and de-escalate, let’s not betray Russia anymore, let’s not waste our money in a bottomless nato money pit based on western lies, and let’s enjoy wealth and freedom later”.
RB
REPLY: While the Democrats embrace alien criminals just because Trump wants to deport them, in Europe, it is NATO and the EU which does everything to undermine Trump and any possible peace in Ukraine. This all brings to mind Smedley D. Butler’s “War Is a Racket” which captures the essence, power, and enduring relevance of war and also civil unrest when it always comes down to money. Butler’s brutally honest book was written in 1935 by one of the most decorated Marines in U.S. history. After a 34-year career fighting in nearly every major U.S. conflict from the Spanish-American War through the “Banana Wars,” Butler reached a shocking conclusion.
Butler came to see that war is not primarily fought for democracy, freedom, or national defense. Instead, it is a carefully orchestrated “racket” – a criminal enterprise designed to generate enormous profits for a select few at the expense of the many. Butler’s critique carried immense weight precisely because of who he was. As a Major General, two-time Medal of Honor recipient, and commander of major expeditions, he had seen the inner workings of war from the highest levels. He couldn’t be dismissed as a naive pacifist.
The “Racket” had three phases, which he identified as:
Lobbying for War: Powerful business interests (bankers, arms manufacturers, industrialists, resource extractors) pressure governments into conflicts that will protect or expand their markets and investments overseas.
Profiteering During War: The same interests make obscene profits selling weapons, munitions, ships, loans, and supplies to the government (funded by taxpayer dollars). Soldiers pay with their lives; civilians pay with blood, suffering, and taxes.
Profiteering After War: These interests often control the post-war settlement, securing lucrative concessions, resource rights, and loan arrangements from defeated nations (reparations), further enriching themselves while saddling populations with debt.The Costs are Borne by Others: The young men who fight and die, the families who lose loved ones, the taxpayers who foot the astronomical bill, and the societies left shattered bear all the real costs. The profits are privatized; the losses are socialized.
Butler pulls no punches, as they say. His language is direct, vivid, and often scathing. He uses stark figures to expose the grotesque disparity between war profits and human cost. (“Out of war nations acquire additional territory… the newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the self-same few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war.”)
Butler’s first-hand experience draws powerful examples from his own service in Cuba, the Philippines, China, Central America, and the Caribbean, showing how U.S. interventions directly benefited specific corporations (e.g., United Fruit, sugar interests, banks).
The critique of the Military-Industrial Complex (a term Eisenhower popularized later) is central. The dynamics Butler described – corporate influence on foreign policy, war profiteering, the manipulation of patriotism, the human cost vs. private gain – remain potent issues. They still dominate this proxy war against Russia, as Boris Johnson openly stated that Britain is at war with Russia.
Naturally, anyone who speaks the truth will have critics who argue for the continued carnage and bloodshed. Critics of Butler argue that he reduces complex geopolitical events to solely economic motives. While he powerfully exposes a crucial driver often overlooked, factors such as ideology, nationalism, genuine security threats, and diplomatic failures also play significant roles in wars. There is always an economic element. When everyone is fat and happy, there is no war.
Butler’s proposed solution was that the only way to stop the racket was to make war unprofitable. When young men are conscripted to die, wealth should be conscripted to pay for the war. Limit wartime profits to a small, fixed percentage. He also argued for restricting military deployment. Only allow the military to defend U.S. soil. No more expeditions to protect corporate investments abroad. “Take the profit out of war.”
Only those registered for frontline service should be allowed to vote on whether to go to war. Not those who profit from war.
It remains a foundational text for understanding the critique of the Military-Industrial Complex, corporate influence on foreign policy, and the inherent injustice of war profiteering. It forces readers to question the official narratives of war and consider the powerful economic interests that often lurk beneath the surface. While perhaps not the only factor in wars, Butler highlights a factor that is frequently overlooked or downplayed. Mainstream media beats the war drums, and they too profit from sensationalizing war to get readership. The Spanish-American War was created by Pulitzer and Hearst competing for readership, creating biased yellow journalism.
In short, “War Is a Racket” is a short, essential, and provocative read. It’s a powerful dose of uncomfortable truth from a man who knew war intimately. Its message is as relevant and disturbing today as it was in 1935. It’s less a book to agree with on every point, and more one to grapple with and be challenged by.
I, for one, will strongly object to ANY federal funds going to California to rebuild LA. Let Newsom raise taxes in California even more to pay for his protection of non-Americans. He forgot that he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. He has rejected that and all responsibility to enforce the law simply because he disagrees with whatever any Republican says – he just has to take the opposite, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. It would be nice to expel California from the United States and let it take in all illegal immigrants who cannot possibly have a legitimate job without citizenship or a Greencard. He supports illegal aliens against Americans – plain and simple. He is violating the civil rights of Americans and for that he could even be criminally charged.
The segregation of the South refused to honor the Constitution. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the Department of Justice (DOJ) powerful tools: filing lawsuits against states, cities, businesses, and school districts; withholding federal funds; and sending federal marshals to protect activists and enforce court orders. The Supreme Court consistently upheld the constitutionality of these laws, especially their use of the Commerce Clause (e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S., Katzenbach v. McClung for the CRA ’64) and the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (e.g., South Carolina v. Katzenbach). This judicial backing was essential.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 demolished the legal framework of segregation in public spaces, schools, and employment. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 smashed the political system built on Black disenfranchisement. Together, backed by federal enforcement, court rulings, and sustained activism, these laws broke the legal backbone of Jim Crow segregation in the American South, transforming the region and the nation. However, the fight for true racial equality continues.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a significant U.S. law that prohibits racial discrimination in voting, aiming to enforce the voting rights guaranteed by the Fifteenth Amendment. It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 6, 1965, and has been amended several times to strengthen its protections against discriminatory practices. The Supreme Court just ruled for straight woman who claims she was subjected to reverse discrimination.
What Newsom is doing in California could land him in prison for a very long time. He is engaging in REVERSE DISCRIMINATION against American citizens when illegal aliens are NOT entitled to voting rights any more than I can vote in London just because I got in and refused to leave. Newsom has violated his oath of office, and this is what Democrats do just to win at all costs anymore, for they feel they MUST oppose whatever Trump does, no matter what..
“In the pre-dawn hours of June 6, 1944, American and Allied forces stormed a 50-mile stretch of beach in Normandy, France, winning a crucial victory that turned the tide of World War II and changed the course of history. The largest amphibious invasion in history—Operation Overlord—was achieved through meticulous planning, utilizing 13,000 aircraft and gliders, 23,400 paratroopers, 5,000 ships and landing craft, and roughly 160,000 American, British, and Canadian troops.
By nightfall, the valiance and intrepidity of the Allied soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and merchant mariners had carried the day, establishing beachheads on all five of the landing beaches – Omaha, Utah, Sword, Gold, and Juno. This victory, though, was achieved at great cost. More than 9,000 Allied service members were killed or wounded that day, to ensure that freedom would once again prevail over the European continent.
On the 81st anniversary of D-day, we pause to pay homage to the warfighters whose indescribable valor, fierce determination, and unwavering patriotism delivered this pivotal victory for the global cause of freedom. The monumental victory forged on land, at sea, and in the skies of Normandy led to the liberation of Europe, the defeat of the evil Nazi regime, and the preservation of democracy.
We are grateful for those young men who answered their nations’ calls and faced the carnage of war in order to defeat tyranny—and we are eternally indebted to the souls who gave their lives in this noble struggle. It is our solemn obligation to remember their heroic stories, honor their sacrifices, and ensure that the freedom for which they died for may never again be in peril.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is in Normandy, France, marking the 81st anniversary of D-Day. He’s attending events at the Normandy American Cemetery and Utah Beach, along with leaders from NATO and other countries. Hegseth is also speaking at a NATO defense meeting in Brussels, where he’s stressing the need for member nations to invest 5% of their GDP in defense.
Posted originally on Jun 1, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
REPLY: You know the real scary thing, they never see how a single incident leads to a catastrophic war. The assassination of the archduke in 1914, or the attack on Pearl Harbor, was precisely what Zelensky was instructed to do by NATO and the EU. If Trump does not get the hell out of NATO ASAP, he had better not respond to an Article 5 call, for that is the false flag I was warning about. They got Zelesnky to take out bombers that were never used in Ukraine, so it was not a question of self-defence? This was aggression.
Trump should make a statement that the US will no longer broker any peace deal with Ukraine UNTIL they remove Zelensky with a verified election.This man is evil and he is destroying Ukraine and cares nothing about the Ukrainian people. This was indeed Russia’s Pearl Harbor.
Posted originally on Jun 1, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
COMMENT: Not sure why the “””Elite””” cannot see this …. this 91 year old has no problem ….. but then maybe growing up in WWII Europe helps …
Opa ’91
REPLY: Maybe people do not seem to pay attention to such events or brush them off. They did that with WWI and WWII. World War I (1914-1918) unfolded through a complex series of events, driven by alliances, nationalism, imperialism, and militarism. Sound familiar?
1. The Spark: Assassination & Escalation (1914)
June 28: Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary is assassinated by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb nationalist, in Sarajevo.
July Crisis: Austria-Hungary (backed by Germany) issues an ultimatum to Serbia. Serbia partially complies, but Austria declares war (July 28).
German advance stalls at the First Battle of the Marne (Sept. 1914). Both sides dug trenches, leading to a deadlocked front from Switzerland to the North Sea. Russia invaded East Prussia but was crushed at Tannenberg (Aug. 1914). Austria-Hungary struggles against Russia and Serbia. The Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers (Oct. 1914), opening fronts in the Caucasus, Mesopotamia, and Gallipoli. Japan seized German colonies in Asia.
TODAY’s attack was for NATO, not Ukraine. These nuclear bombers were not deployed in Ukraine. Thus, it was by no means self-defense. This was like the assassination that started WWI or Hitler crossing the border into Poland for WWII. This was an EU act of War, and there is no way that when history is written, we will see this as an act of Ukraine without direction or help.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 