If you're going to criticize the critique, you need to take it on directly, not, as is too often the case, deflect the substance of the criticism with the question begging (circular) status-quo (more-of-the-same) argument that what is being done is an honestly proposed solution to a problem that is as it is stated to be.
Taking on the critique directly means dealing with the claim that the stated origin of the problem is a lie. If your answer to that is "No, it is not a lie," then "So, what's your solution?" is a virtual non-sequitur. If it's rhetorical, it's an examination of a position you reject. As such, any subsequent assertion along the lines that holding that position, I am not living in your reality is one that I fully accept.
If, on the other hand, you are prepared to accept that the stated origin of problem is a lie, then the solution must involve in some fashion a rejection of the strategy to unify people & their representatives in a state of warfare against an enemy that is being created and recreated with every munitions delivery via trade or deployment; you have to reject both the quasi-terrorized demand that something more be done and the composed face that assures us that the problem is being addressed reasonably.
The solution is obvious: Stop creating war for the creation of more war. This is not a circular proposition, but a demonstrable reality to anyone who honestly observes the pattern of conflict & resolution: Setting them up & knocking them down.
You have to admit that you have a problem before you start proposing solutions. It's evident that the "So what's your solution?" argument does not indicate a willingness to admit the problem, but its intellectual inconsistency does hint at a sneaking suspicion that the problem as stated is buried in deception and displays a readiness to entertain a solution to this real problem buried in denial.
For the willing: No, we cannot turn back time, but we can stop fueling the fire. To continue a military strategy against this monster of a lie that was created by way of the same is folly. Of course, at least some of the actors on both putative sides of this folly are aware of this and will continue to profit from it; my "solution" entails transmitting awareness of this fact; it does not claim to be a solution to the rich and varied violence that humans unleash upon each other.
Non-acceptance of the stated problem and refusal of explicit or implicit support of the solution to the same is a first step. Obviously the masses are not going to defeat the military industrial complex in a conventional sense. But the more people are willing to call it by its real name, the sooner their familiars will be less inclined to lend their life's blood to its projects.
As to the metonymical land stalking monster, no proverbial head can be removed the way pundits and pols presently claim, but its motivation and means of existence can dissipate over time if enough people resist signing on to mythological wars that feed the frenzy that grows the monster.
Taking on the critique directly means dealing with the claim that the stated origin of the problem is a lie. If your answer to that is "No, it is not a lie," then "So, what's your solution?" is a virtual non-sequitur. If it's rhetorical, it's an examination of a position you reject. As such, any subsequent assertion along the lines that holding that position, I am not living in your reality is one that I fully accept.
If, on the other hand, you are prepared to accept that the stated origin of problem is a lie, then the solution must involve in some fashion a rejection of the strategy to unify people & their representatives in a state of warfare against an enemy that is being created and recreated with every munitions delivery via trade or deployment; you have to reject both the quasi-terrorized demand that something more be done and the composed face that assures us that the problem is being addressed reasonably.
The solution is obvious: Stop creating war for the creation of more war. This is not a circular proposition, but a demonstrable reality to anyone who honestly observes the pattern of conflict & resolution: Setting them up & knocking them down.
You have to admit that you have a problem before you start proposing solutions. It's evident that the "So what's your solution?" argument does not indicate a willingness to admit the problem, but its intellectual inconsistency does hint at a sneaking suspicion that the problem as stated is buried in deception and displays a readiness to entertain a solution to this real problem buried in denial.
For the willing: No, we cannot turn back time, but we can stop fueling the fire. To continue a military strategy against this monster of a lie that was created by way of the same is folly. Of course, at least some of the actors on both putative sides of this folly are aware of this and will continue to profit from it; my "solution" entails transmitting awareness of this fact; it does not claim to be a solution to the rich and varied violence that humans unleash upon each other.
Non-acceptance of the stated problem and refusal of explicit or implicit support of the solution to the same is a first step. Obviously the masses are not going to defeat the military industrial complex in a conventional sense. But the more people are willing to call it by its real name, the sooner their familiars will be less inclined to lend their life's blood to its projects.
As to the metonymical land stalking monster, no proverbial head can be removed the way pundits and pols presently claim, but its motivation and means of existence can dissipate over time if enough people resist signing on to mythological wars that feed the frenzy that grows the monster.
