MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

As Media Amplifies Unrest in Venezuela and Beyond, Millions Are Quietly Revolting in Colombia

Posted by M. C. on February 25, 2020

Yet because Colombia has for decades been a close ally of the United States and Europe, the country continues to be referred to as a “democracy.” This has led to academics coming up with new phrases to explain the apparent paradox, including “low-intensity democracies,” “undemocratic democracies” and even “genocidal democracies.”

One reason for the lack of media coverage likely owes to the decades-long U.S.-Colombia alliance. In order to cover the popular movements against Duque’s government, the media would have to acknowledge the gravity of Colombia’s current situation, which would then increase international pressure on Duque and his administration to address the issues that motivate the protests, something the U.S. government does not support.

Move along, nothing to see here.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-silent-millions-quietly-protest-colombia/265096/

By Alan Macleod and
Whitney Webb Whitney Webb

Many of the massive anti-neoliberal protest movements that exploded across the globe last year have pressed on into 2020, especially those that rose up throughout Latin America. Many of those demonstrations — clearly newsworthy due to their enormous size, composition, and motives — were and continue to be ignored by prominent English language news outlets, essentially creating a media blackout of these movements.

This trend has been particularly magnified in Latin American countries whose current governments are closely allied with the United States, with Colombia, in particular, standing out. Despite being faced with protests from hundreds of thousands of people fueled by anger over state corruption, proposed neoliberal reforms and a spike in murders of social leaders, the unrest in Colombia has garnered remarkably little international media attention.

In contrast, U.S.-supported right-wing movements attempting to topple socialist governments like those in Venezuela and Bolivia have received a great deal of coverage and open support from both the media and the political class.

It is certainly telling that international media outlets largely ignored the protests of Colombia’s teachers, who were motivated to act largely due to a dangerous wave of violence targeting them incited by the government itself, leading to several murders and hundreds of death threats in the span of just a few months. Colombia’s President Iván Duque’s political mentor Álvaro Uribe, himself president between 2002 and 2010, accused the country’s teachers of brainwashing the youth: “Teachers only teach them to yell and to insult, not how to debate, warping their minds,” he said.

That story was overlooked in the media, likely due to the close ties between the country’s conservative government and the United States. Colombia remains the continent’s top recipient of American military aid, despite the fact that the U.S. government itself has disclosed ties between Colombia’s military, former President Uribe and the illegal drug trade.

 

Colombian teachers protest to defend their lives

Of the recent protests that have taken place in Colombia, the strikes led by Colombian teachers and one of the main teachers’ unions in the country — the Colombian Federation of Education Workers (Fecode) — have received almost no coverage in English-language media. The Fecode-led strikes revolve not around demands for better wages or increased funding for public education but around the slew of death threats and recent murders that have targeted Colombia’s education workers.

“Our teachers continue to be threatened and attacked,” said Fecode head Nelson Alcaron, “This government is indolent. It isn’t taking measures to protect their lives,” he added, noting that 240 have been threatened this year alone. “We live in a country that kills children, that kills social leaders, with a government that is against peace…That is why we have to change something. We cannot continue to live like this,” another protester said.

Though the fact that Colombian teachers are protesting in defense of their very lives is clearly newsworthy, adding to the importance of the demonstrations is the fact that these murders and death threats are closely tied to Colombia’s current government led by President Iván Duque. Duque and his political allies have incited violence against the country’s teachers, and those affiliated with Fecode in particular. The president’s political party, the Democratic Center, have stepped up their rhetoric towards education workers, asserting that teachers’ unions, namely Fecode, “must disappear” while some Democratic Center politicians have moved to criminalize teacher protests and strikes and fire any teachers who make political statements deemed non-essential to the subject they teach.

Colombia Protest

As these verbal attacks have grown, teachers in Colombia have been increasingly targeted, especially after Fecode-led strikes and demonstrations took place during the latter half of last year denouncing a new wave of threats towards teachers which they assert are linked to Duque’s political base. One demonstration in August was partially spurred by the brutal murder of school principal Orlando Gómez, who was abducted from the school where he worked and then murdered after having received numerous death threats for his educational work in the violence-plagued Cauca region.

As noted by Fecode during a 24-hour teacher strike “in defense of the lives of teachers” that took place last September, 10 teachers were murdered and another 700 received death threats during Duque’s first year in office. Fecode claimed the murders and death threats were directly related to “a systematic social media campaign of harassment and outright lies against educators and their students” led by Democratic Center activists and leaders.

Yet, since 2020 began, the wave in violence against teachers has continued to grow. In the first two weeks of February alone, one teacher was murdered, a regional coordinator of Fecode survived an assassination attempt, an entire school was forced to close down due to death threats made against teachers, and 15 Fecode-linked teachers were forced to flee the town where they lived and worked. Last week, death threats were sent to an additional 25 teachers ahead of their school’s plan to commemorate a massacre committed by a paramilitary group 25 years ago. In response to the wave of violence and threats, Fecode announced another strike to take place in coming weeks to both highlight and denounce the dangerous situation faced by Colombian teachers.

 

Western media ignore largest strike in over 40 years

One reason for the jump in violence targeting Fecode and Colombian teachers may be due to the fact that their demonstrations helped to spur much larger protests that have united diverse factions and groups in Colombian society in their opposition to various right-wing policies of the Colombian government. Following the Fecode-led demonstrations in August and September of last year, a massive national strike and anti-government protests saw hundreds of thousands take to the streets last November amid a backdrop of anti-government demonstrations in several other Latin American countries, including Chile and Ecuador. Today, seven million Colombian students have been left without teachers amid a massive strike.

The national strike was joined, not just by Fecode, but by the country’s labor unions, student groups, indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities and farmers, among others. It was the largest national strike to take place in Colombia since the late 1970s and was met by the Duque government with curfews, border closures, rubber bullets and teargas, with at least one person killed by a police projectile.

Since November, however, the national strikes and general anti-government sentiment have continued, with national strikes and related demonstrations taking place in December and January. Another strike is planned for Friday and a separate strike is scheduled to take place in March. Protest organizers asserted last month that these actions will continue “until something changes,” with the high rate of murders targeting social leaders remaining one of the main complaints of those demonstrating.

While the protests have gripped Colombia, they have barely been reported in the Western press, with coverage of the monthslong rebellion garnering barely a few, disinterested mentions. CNN, for example, appears not to have discussed the events for over two months. When mentioned at all, the idea that the protests are largely the result of “foreign meddling” (CNN) from Venezuela or “Russian trolls” (New York Times) is often floated.

Colombia protests media bias

In comparison, there was widespread coverage of and immediate support for the right-wing protests and coup attempt that brought down Bolivia’s socialist president Evo Morales in November, with media falsely claiming he had resigned (CBS News) due to election fraud (New York Times). Collectively, corporate media welcomed the fall of a supposed “full-blown dictatorship” (Miami Herald) and the “restoration of democracy” (The Economist).

 

State-backed terror and “low-intensity democracy” in Colombia

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Who killed Thomas Merton? | Catholics Against Militarism

Posted by M. C. on February 25, 2020

The most likely suspect in plotting Merton’s murder, a man who was a much stronger force for peace than most people realize, they identify as the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States government. Thomas Merton was the most important Roman Catholic spiritual and anti-warfare-state writer of the 20th century and the powers-that-be in the corporate world, in the military world, in the world of the CIA, FBI and NSA and in the world of government were as acutely aware of the power he possessed to undermine their bloody profit making schemes as they were of King and Kennedy’s power to do the same.

http://catholicsagainstmilitarism.com/uncategorized/who-killed-thomas-merton/

The following was written by Fr. Emmanuel McCarthy:

Friends,

On February 18: The U.S. State Department announced the highest U.S. casualty toll of the Vietnam War, with 543 Americans killed in action and 2,547 wounded during the previous week.

On March 16: U.S. ground troops murdered more than 500 Vietnamese civilians in the My Lai Massacre in South Vietnam.

On April 4: Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered in Memphis, TN

On June 5: Robert Kennedy was murdered in Los Angeles, CA.

On December 10: Thomas Merton is murdered in Bangkok, Thailand

The Martyrdom of Thomas Merton: Paperback – March 7, 2018

 Hugh Turley (Author), David Martin (Author)

Review from Amazon:

“Seldom can one predict that a book will have an effect on history, but this is such a work. Merton’s many biographers and the American press now say unanimously that he died from accidental electrocution. From a careful examination of the official record, including crime scene photographs that the authors have found that the investigating police in Thailand never saw, and from reading the letters of witnesses, they have discovered that the accidental electrocution conclusion is totally false. The widely repeated story that Merton had taken a shower and was therefore wet when he touched a lethal faulty fan was made up several years after the event and is completely contradicted by the evidence. Hugh Turley and David Martin identify four individuals as the primary promoters of the false accidental electrocution narrative. Another person, they show, should have been treated as a murder suspect. The most likely suspect in plotting Merton’s murder, a man who was a much stronger force for peace than most people realize, they identify as the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States government. Thomas Merton was the most important Roman Catholic spiritual and anti-warfare-state writer of the 20th century and the powers-that-be in the corporate world, in the military world, in the world of the CIA, FBI and NSA and in the world of government were as acutely aware of the power he possessed to undermine their bloody profit making schemes as they were of King and Kennedy’s power to do the same. To date, Merton has been the subject of 28 biographies and numerous other books. Remarkably, up to now no one has looked critically at the mysterious circumstances surrounding his sudden death in Thailand. From its publication date on the 50th anniversary of his death, into the foreseeable future, this carefully researched work will be the definitive, authoritative book on how Thomas Merton died.”

—

I read this book cover to cover and it is a solid presentation of the logically unbridgeable abyss between the physical evidence that is available for anyone to examine and the official story put out by the U.S. Government and the Church regarding Thomas Merton’s death. What concerns me is not that the U.S. government had a hand in Merton’s murder and cover-up of the murder. Clandestinely murdering innocent people is the ordinary modus operandi of all major governments all the time. What concerns me is that the leadership of the institutional Church acquiesced to a narrative regarding the murder of one of its own, which narrative cannot be sustained, indeed is in contradiction to, the evidence. Of course, maybe the leadership of the institutional Church did not see Merton as one of its own but saw him rather as a hair shirt of truth to whom they were glad to say, ever so piously, “Good riddance.”

Be seeing you

Thomas Merton | January 30, 2015 | Religion & Ethics ...

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Don’t Be Fooled by the Deplatforming of Facebook – Gold Goats ‘n Guns

Posted by M. C. on February 25, 2020

They want regulation of all social media companies to create unscalable barriers to entry for new ones while curtailing free speech on the existing ones.

The big tech companies want to have it both ways, be a neutral platform legally but self-define ‘neutrality’ in such a way that benefits them politically, economically and socially while insulating themselves from breaching contracts with their customers.

Didn’t you all notice how both of these things became issues right after the wrong person won the 2016 presidential election and the British people made the wrong decision about EU Membership?

https://tomluongo.me/2020/02/22/dont-be-fooled-by-the-deplatforming-of-facebook/

The push for speech control escalates. There is now a concentration of stories concerning social media companies and their role in shaping political thought.

We are nine months from a pivotal presidential election in the U.S. and the push is on to ensure that the outcome goes the way those in power want it to.

Three times in as many weeks billionaire busybody George Soros has attacked Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, demanding he be removed because he is working to re-elect Donald Trump.

This seems like an absurdity. But it isn’t. It’s all part of the game plan.

Create a controversy that isn’t real to seed a narrative that there’s a problem in need of a solution. Facebook has been the center of this controversy to inflame passions on both sides of the political aisle to ensure the desired outcome.

They want regulation of all social media companies to create unscalable barriers to entry for new ones while curtailing free speech on the existing ones.

Warren Buffet would call that a moat. I call it tyranny.

Enter Attorney General William Barr.

He weighed in recently that we need to have a conversation about Facebook et.al. in relation to their Section 230 immunity under the Communications Decency Act.

Section 230 grants immunity to companies like Facebook and Google from prosecution for content hosted on their services as they argue they are not publishers but rather just pass-through entities or platforms of user-generated content.

Now, it’s pretty clear for the past few years the social media companies have been acting with open editorial bias to deplatform undesirables. They rewrite broadly defined terms of services and EULAs (End-User Licence Agreements) which they use to justify controlling what content they are willing to host.

And that’s where the Section 230 immunity comes into play. The big tech companies want to have it both ways, be a neutral platform legally but self-define ‘neutrality’ in such a way that benefits them politically, economically and socially while insulating themselves from breaching contracts with their customers.

What’s clear from Barr’s comments he’s approaching this from a law enforcement perspective.

“We are concerned that internet services, under the guise of Section 230, can not only block access to law enforcement — even when officials have secured a court-authorized warrant — but also prevent victims from civil recovery,” Barr said. “Giving broad immunity to platforms that purposefully blind themselves — and law enforcers — to illegal conduct on their services does not create incentives to make the online world safer for children.”

And this clearly doesn’t address the real issue. That’s your sign there’s something wrong here.

Both political parties are unhappy with the current situation and that should be your red flag that a great stitch-up is in progress. Because the end goal here is government oversight that has bipartisan support.

That support has to be manufactured from both sides. The left wants protection from ‘fake news’ and ‘Russian meddling’ while the right wants a level playing field to air ideas in the public square.

Didn’t you all notice how both of these things became issues right after the wrong person won the 2016 presidential election and the British people made the wrong decision about EU Membership?

I’m sure you noticed the blatant bias exhibited by Facebook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, Reddit and the rest of these protected platforms and wondered why they were allowed to act so egregiously with seemingly no recourse?

The big tech companies don’t want more government oversight, they simply want to continue to have their have their editorial take and enforce it too while taking your money and suppressing your voice.

Government intervention is not the solution here. In fact, it is the goal of the entire exercise.

I don’t want the government coming in and further defining the rules by which Facebook can deplatform everyone who tells inconvenient truths.

Because that’s all government does. And then it empowers a bureaucracy to enforce those rules.

I don’t need a Ministry of Truth to protect me from the bad people. I know where the bad people are and, in your heart, so do you.

So the question isn’t whether Barr should strip these companies of their Section 230 immunity. Of course he should if they exhibit any kind of editorial behavior.

But, in typical Swamp fashion, Barr isn’t concerned about that. He’s concerned with using Facebook to track down criminals; the implication being drug runners, murderers, etc.

That’s a sop to law and order conservatives to get their support politically.

But the real criminals are in the bowels of the compliance departments and algorithm factories of these social media companies pushing the bounds of indecency by trying to protect us from fake news to control the flow of information.

They’ve already done a great deal of this, altering search algorithms to ensure only approved news sources show up in the results.

We know they are all working in cahoots with the intelligence agencies here in the U.S. but no one will admit it publicly. The EU and China are more honest about their tyrannical impulses using their anti-democratic structure to create rules which they force onto these multi-national companies.

Now Twitter is testing new flagging abilities for verified accounts to act as community censors, creating the illusion of a user-controlled public space. It’ll only be for those that get blue check marks. And that’s a system clearly gamed to reflect a particular ideological bias as no one who dissents from the approved globalist message gets one of those anymore.

So, only journalists from official news outlets will have this ability to fact-check in real time the pronouncements of important influencers.

If you don’t think this is simply a means by which to make it seem fair to suppress the king of Twitter, Donald Trump, then you clearly haven’t had your morning coffee.

For a couple of years now I’ve been warning you that the elites are desperate to regain control over what I call The Wire. What is The Wire?

The Wire is simply a metaphor for the transmission of information.  The Wire takes many forms.  And if you aren’t sure whether something is The Wire just ask if you have control over it or not.

The Internet?  The Wire.

Electricity?  The Wire

Roads?  The Wire.

Media?  The Wire.

Money?  The Wire.

In short, The Wire is the main conduit through which we communicate with each other.  Money?  Really?  Yes, really.  What are prices if not information about what we are willing to part with your money in exchange for?

Without The Wire modern society fails.  So, government can’t shut it down but neither can it allow unrenstrained access to it.

Electricity, commerce, communications, everything, goes over The Wire.  

Control of The Wire is everything. Soros is desperately trying to hold onto control over the social media companies he’s invested so heavily in to influence their influence.

And it’s clear we’ve entered the next phase of regaining control over it.

The solution to the Section 230 Immunity issue for these companies is to remove it and open them up to civil liabilities for their inconsistent enforcement of their own policies.

Because once you do that they have no protection under commercial contract law.

Those users that use these platforms for commercial purposes are materially harmed by the ever-changing rules of these platforms.

They entered into an agreement with YouTube or Facebook in good faith expectation of a certain level of service.

Facebook’s business is built on the implicit guarantee of that service. In turn, Facebook was built on the backs of those using the platform.

Unilaterally taking away that access without compensation simply because Facebook said so is a perversion of contract law. Why should Facebook be allowed to do that? Why hasn’t this clear inequity between parties to a contract been addressed by the courts?

And that’s what we should be addressing here.

And I’m not just talking about Facebook here. Remember when the social network Gab had its internet access revoked by GoDaddy? How does GoDaddy escape paying damages for unilaterally denying service?

There is clear opportunity for them to be sued into submission by the millions of users whose businesses and reputations have been destroyed due to arbitrary enforcement of company rules.

At the end of the day these companies create and use as excuses broad powers which have almost no precedent in contract law. Their EULAs are contracts the user signs which grants them no rights or guarantees of service in any way. They can be abrogated, updated and changed to suit the company’s whim with no redress for the breach of contract from the other party.

This is outrageous, unacceptable and flies in the face of hundreds of years of contract law.

And they should be challenged in court and thrown out as illegal Contracts of Adhesion. This is settled contract law.

If Facebook wants to ban Alex Jones from their platform fine. I have zero problem with that. If they want to act as a private business which is protected under the First Amendment’s protection of Freedom of Association, great!

I’m all for re-establishing that in this society.

Let’s open up that can of worms.

It would finally be an honest conversation. Because we are rapidly approaching the moment of reverse racism, whereby Facebook doesn’t want to host racist or sexist content.

And I’m fine with that. But I’m also fine then with restaurants not serving black people or people baking wedding cakes for gay couples.

Freedom OF association is also Freedom FROM association, folks.

The shit-libs and the oligarchs want it both ways. They want you to be forced to associate with others on their terms but deny you a place in society because you disagree with them.

That is, in a word, tyrannical.

So, in a just world, Facebook owes Alex Jones millions for lost revenue and damages to Jones’ business as well as, one could argue, a portion of Facebook’s revenue it generated during the time it hosted Jones’ content which brought the company users, revenue and market share.

Multiply that lawsuit by ten for the number of platforms Alex Jones has been banned from. Then multiply that number by the millions for everyone else these platforms have materially harmed.

And then we’ll see what the market cap of the NASDAQ 100 would truly be.

And that’s one way we should fight this, not by empowering more bureaucrats to police everyone’s speech on Twitter, but to sue Twitter for non-fulfillment of obligations under the reasonable expectation of service they are to provide as a party to a legal contract.

This is what I wanted to hear William Barr was focusing on in working on. But that is exactly what will not happen.

The other is to develop technology which resists the centralizing power of these companies to control our speech, democratizing it at the incentive level, through projects like Brave and other blockchain-based systems, which empower the user, not the platform to decide which content has value and which doesn’t.

Beware the deplatforming of Facebook, it’s just another brick in the wall.

Be seeing you

George Soros: Latest Tactic is ‘Turn Texas Blue’ – Destroy ...

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Comments Off on Don’t Be Fooled by the Deplatforming of Facebook – Gold Goats ‘n Guns

Is Libertarianism a Mental Illness? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 25, 2020

Does it not border on mental illness to support something that is the cornerstone of a police state?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/02/laurence-m-vance/is-libertarianism-a-mental-illness/

By

Although I had not written anything about the government’s war on drugs since December (see here), earlier this month I received a brief note in my inbox with the subject line of: “Like libertinism (aka liberalism), libertarianism is bordering on mental illness.” The body of the e-mail simply said: “—regarding freedom to use drugs (( been writing about that insanity for three decades )).” The note closed with “JungianINTP,” which refers to the Carl Jung personality type of “Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Perceiving” (INTP).

So, basically, what my respondent was saying is that the freedom to use drugs is insane and libertarianism is bordering on mental illness for espousing such freedom. No essays, articles, or books written over the last three decades about the insanity of drug freedom were mentioned.

But is it libertarians who are insane for believing in drug freedom or is it drug warriors who have a mental illness?

The libertarian position on the drug war is straightforward. Here is the condensed version:

There should be no laws at any level of government for any reason regarding the buying, selling, growing, processing, transporting, manufacturing, advertising, using, or possessing of any drug for any reason.

The drug war should be ended immediately because it is not the proper role of government to prohibit, regulate, restrict, or otherwise control what a man desires to eat, drink, smoke, inject, absorb, snort, sniff, inhale, swallow, or otherwise ingest into his mouth, nose, veins, or lungs.

This, of course, does not mean that libertarians think that drug use is moral, safe, beneficial, or healthy, or that they recommend that anyone take drugs. And it also doesn’t mean that libertarians are naïve about the negative effects of drug abuse. Using drugs may cost you your money, your health, your mind, your job, your status, your reputation, your family, and/or your friends. Using drugs may even kill you. But with drug freedom comes responsibility. Drug users are ultimately responsible for their own actions.

So no, drug freedom is not insanity, and libertarians who believe in drug freedom are not bordering on mental illness.

Now consider the following—

Does it not border on mental illness to want the government to outlaw drugs but not alcohol?

Does it not border on mental illness to believe that drugs should be prohibited because they are immoral, but that other immoral activities like committing adultery and fornication should not be the concern of government?

Does it not border on mental illness to support a drug war with costs that greatly exceed any of its supposed benefits?

Does it not border on mental illness to support the monstrous evil that is the drug war that has ruined more lives than drugs themselves?

Does it not border on mental illness to believe that drugs should be prohibited because they are self-destructive, but that self-destructive activities like having casual sex and habitually overeating are none of the government’s business?

Does it not border on mental illness to support a drug war that is a complete and utter failure?

Does it not border on mental illness to support the federal drug war when there is no constitutional authority for it?

Does it not border on mental illness to believe that drugs should be prohibited because they are dangerous, but that dangerous activities like skydiving, MMA fighting, bungee jumping, and working as a roofer or logger should be permitted?

Does it not border on mental illness to say that marijuana should be illegal but that tobacco—which kills tens of thousands every year directly and indirectly—should be legal?

Does it not border on mental illness to not want the government to interfere with Americans’ consumption habits except when it comes to the consumption of drugs?

Does it not border on mental illness to want the government to ban marijuana—even though the government acknowledges that marijuana use has never killed anyone—but not to ban aspirin and other NSAID drugs, which have killed thousands?

Does it not border on mental illness to believe that drugs should be prohibited because they are addictive, but that addictive activities like playing video games and viewing pornography should not be the concern of government?

Does it not border on mental illness to support something that is impossible to reconcile it with a limited government?

Does it not border on mental illness to support something that is the cornerstone of a police state?

Does it not border on mental illness to believe that drugs should be prohibited because they are unhealthy, but that eating junk food and drinking beverages laden with high-fructose corn syrup is none of the government’s business?

Does it not border on mental illness to support the government waging war on a plant?

I think it is drug warriors who are out of their mind.

I think that drug prohibition is insanity, and drug warriors who believe in drug prohibition are bordering on mental illness.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Trump’s Betrayal of Julian Assange

Posted by M. C. on February 25, 2020


It is ironic that a President Trump who has been victim of so much deep state meddling has done the deep state’s bidding when it comes to Assange and Wikileaks.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/february/24/trump-s-betrayal-of-julian-assange/

Written by Ron Paul

One thing we’ve learned from the Trump Presidency is that the “deep state” is not just some crazy conspiracy theory. For the past three years we’ve seen that deep state launch plot after plot to overturn the election.

It all started with former CIA director John Brennan’s phony “Intelligence Assessment” of Russian involvement in the 2016 election. It was claimed that all 17 US intelligence agencies agreed that Putin put Trump in office, but we found out later that the report was cooked up by a handful of Brennan’s hand-picked agents.

Donald Trump upset the Washington apple cart as presidential candidate and in so doing he set elements of the deep state in motion against him.

One of the things candidate Donald Trump did to paint a deep state target on his back was his repeated praise of Wikileaks, the pro-transparency media organization headed up by Australian journalist Julian Assange. More than 100 times candidate Trump said “I love Wikileaks” on the campaign trail.

Trump loved it when Wikileaks exposed the criminality of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, as it cheated to deprive Bernie Sanders of the Democratic Party nomination. Wikileaks’ release of the DNC emails exposed the deep corruption at the heart of US politics, and as a candidate Trump loved the transparency.

Then Trump got elected.

The real tragedy of the Trump presidency is nowhere better demonstrated than in Trump’s 180 degree turn away from Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange. “I know nothing about Wikileaks,” he said as president. “It’s really not my thing.”

US pressure and bribes to the Ecuadorian government ended Assange’s asylum and his seven years in a room at the Ecuadorian embassy in London. After his dramatic arrest by London’s Metropolitan Police last April, he has been effectively tortured in British jails at the behest of the US deep state.


Today, Monday the 24th of February, Assange faces an extradition hearing in a UK courthouse. The Trump Administration – led by a man who praised Assange’s work – seeks a show trial of Assange worthy of the worst of the Soviet era. The US is seeking a 175 year prison sentence.

The Trump Administration argues that the Australian Assange should be tried and convicted of espionage against a country of which he is not a citizen. At the same time the Trump Administration argues that the First Amendment does not apply to Assange because he is not an American citizen! So Assange is subject to US law when it comes to publishing information embarrassing to the US deep state but he is not subject to the law of the land – the US Constitution – which protects all journalists and is the backbone of our system of government.

It is ironic that a President Trump who has been victim of so much deep state meddling has done the deep state’s bidding when it comes to Assange and Wikileaks. President Trump should preempt the inevitable US show trial of Assange by granting the journalist blanket pardon under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The deep state Trump is serving by persecuting Assange is the same deep state that continues to plot Trump’s own ouster. Free Assange!


Copyright © 2020 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

 

Be seeing you

U.N.’s Specialist On Torture To Visit Assange in Belmarsh ...

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What We’re Not Allowed To Know About the Afghan War – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on February 24, 2020

Rather, in this moment – well into year 19 of a war Americans now ignore – the real story is SIGAR#46 itself: specifically what this remarkable (if insipid) report contains. See, what’s profound about the document is threefold: what it says, what it doesn’t say, and (most fascinating / disturbing of all), what it says it can’t say. No need, even, to read between the lines – the document literally lists what it won’t let out.

…he admits the Afghan War is “still” in “a state of strategic stalemate.” Not too comforting, that – especially after 19 years of killing and dying.

https://original.antiwar.com/Danny_Sjursen/2020/02/23/what-were-not-allowed-to-know-about-the-afghan-war/

Tune in to Episode#46 of the SIGAR (Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction) show, folks – at least those (few) who still care about America’s longest, ongoing, war. The latest installment just dropped, and I promise it’s a gem: replete with the all the dramatic suspense of “Homeland,” the dark comedy of a rebooted “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” and the sappy tear-jerking of “This Is Us.” OK, maybe I’m overselling that; it’s a pretty abstruse government document, at root. Still, this particular segment from the congressionally-appointed organization charged with “independent and objective oversight of Afghanistan reconstruction projects and activities,” is pretty darn profound if anyone bothered to read it. But few will.

See, Americans will binge watch anything – no matter how banal – put in front of them by Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime, especially if it means they can avoid (gasp) any of that messy face-to-face human interaction stuff. Sure, there are now 46 SIGAR installments, but what’s that compared to 201 episodes of the beloved “Office?” But read even the 1-2 page executive summaries of quarterly reports that increasingly, and vehemently, conclude that the nation’s longest war – which still kills American troops – is failing? Fat chance. Never happen. That, like “voluntary” service in the war itself, is somebody else’s job. Not that reading even the entire (most relevant) “Security” section would take very long. After all, the current top New York Times bestseller, Open Book – by the always riveting and relevant pop star Jessica Simpson – clocks in at 416 pages, compared to just 26 (with ample pictures and charts) in this security report.

Now, luckily for you, the reader, I’ve neither the space, energy, nor inclination to recount, again, the holistic failures, obfuscations, and contradictions of this absurd, endless war. Rather, in this moment – well into year 19 of a war Americans now ignore – the real story is SIGAR#46 itself: specifically what this remarkable (if insipid) report contains. See, what’s profound about the document is threefold: what it says, what it doesn’t say, and (most fascinating / disturbing of all), what it says it can’t say. No need, even, to read between the lines – the document literally lists what it won’t let out.

Coming from a notoriously (and increasingly) furtive Pentagon, and government more generally, this 46th internal report card is at times astonishingly forthright – even about what it “legally” refuses to be forthright about! It’s all rather stunning, and, in a macabre way, almost refreshing. So why be so straight-up, Uncle Sam? It sure ain’t due to any principled attachment to the public’s right-to-know. Nah, call me cynical – conspiratorial even – but I’m increasingly persuaded that the report is almost some sort of dark inside joke. It’s like a dare-you-to-care, slap-in-the-face to a cowed citizenry whom the powers-that-be know don’t care about, or even pay attention to, this forever war. See, they count on, maybe even laugh at, such public apathy.

So, to hit only the highest of the highlights: let’s review just what’s (sequentially) in, the security section of SIGAR-46 – with particular attention to what it says, doesn’t say, and says it doesn’t say. The darn thing begins with an instructive admission from Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, in which he admits the Afghan War is “still” in “a state of strategic stalemate.” Not too comforting, that – especially after 19 years of killing and dying. Then, it quotes a January 22, 2020 White House statement that President Trump’s goal is for the Taliban to demonstrate “a significant and lasting reduction in violence…that would facilitate meaningful negotiations on Afghanistan’s future.”

Presumably, this would allow the U.S. to – Vietnam-style – declare victory and go home. Unfortunately, what it doesn’t say is that the Taliban holds the strongest hand right now, controls or contests more of the country than ever before, has time on its side, and thus has no incentive to oblige Mr. Trump. Nor does it say that (and this is awkward) the “sovereign” Afghan Government categorically rejects negotiations with the Taliban on Trump’s – admittedly oscillating – terms.

Furthermore, the report says that Taliban-initiated attacks were actually higher this fourth quarter than in any year since data collection began in 2010. Furthermore, it admits that more American service members died in 2019 (23) than in any year since 2014. SIGAR doesn’t say, what, precisely, those soldiers died for! The report then goes on to list out a bunch of fairly vital information that’s recently (for the last few years) been “classified.” Instructively, SIGAR feels obliged (read: forced) to place the following verbatim statement before each and every datapoint it says it can’t say: “US Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) continued to classify or otherwise restrict from public release the following types of data…” These minor items include, well: Afghan Security Forces’ casualty numbers, performance assessments (how these U.S.-trained units are, you know, doing), and overall personnel “attrition” (from desertion, books-cooking, and battle deaths).

I know what you’re thinking: so how are the American people to know how the war is going, and thus how to assess it, and thereby which candidate for commander-in-chief to vote for? Short answer: they won’t – and that’s the idea! The national security state doesn’t want an educated, informed, active citizenry. That’s not in their interest. Here’s a thought experiment to demonstrate just how off-the-democratic-rails the system has gone: Imagine the outcry if on June 7th, 1944, the US Government announced – “Sorry, folks, we can’t tell you how D-Day turned out, but, please keep sending your precious boys across the Atlantic to fight anyway!”

Oh, and there’s so much more inside SIGAR’s treasure-trove of tragedy: violence is still highest in the traditional Taliban heartland of the Afghan South, West and Mountain East, but, in 2019, increased and even spread into the non-Pashto North and Capital-bordering regions. Indeed, enemy attacks were up in 13 of 34 provinces (38 percent), seven of which aren’t even Pashto-majority (most all Taliban hail from this ethnic group) districts. Then the document says that Afghan Security Force numbers were up seven percent this quarter, but didn’t say that much of that increase came from finally auditing and fiddling with the byzantine Afghan “books,” or that the total force is still – after 19 years of raising and training that force with American cash and human effort – only manned at 77.5 percent of authorized capacity, a mere 79,000 man shortfall.

Finally, the report vaguely says that a “general” – exact Afghan casualty counts remain classified – DOD “assessment” showed that local security force casualties “increased slightly.” What it doesn’t say anything about are two defeat-clinching details: 1) That the US trained and equipped (to the tune of some $70 billion) Afghan military is suffering unsustainable casualties – that is, losing troops faster than it can replace them; and 2) That the Afghan GDP is insufficient to pay the bill for its own security forces (which runs at $5 billion annually against $2 billion of domestic revenue). More specifically, foreign aid still accounts for more than 95 percent of the national GDP. It’s the sort of mental math my 5th grader is capable of: an unsustainable formula for perpetual US involvement in the conflict.

So there you have it, folks. It’s all in there: open admissions, obvious omissions, and forthright admissions-of-omissions – which all point towards a failed war that has long ago been lost. Clearly, if America was still an even marginally functional (ostensible) republic, every single Congressman would have felt duty-bound, and voluntarily read these (and past) reports. My guess is few bothered. Then, in my democratic fantasy world, there’d be hardcore hearings on the Hill and every relevant national security figure of the last two decades would be called on the carpet with some awkward explaining to do. But there won’t be any of that, either.

Only it isn’t just a derelict-in-its-duty, busy with “dialing-for-dollars” Legislature that’s to blame for Afghan War inertia (though Congress-bashing is rather cathartic!). No, a slew of other organizations and institutions – universities, churches, unions, and veterans’ groups, for starters – ought to be devouring every word of these crucial reports, planning, assembling, and then hitting the old streets in response to the rank ridiculousness revealed therein. Yet it just doesn’t seem – on any substantial scale – to be happening. And, while I know it isn’t strictly true, in my darker moments of despair I genuinely wonder if I’m the last citizen left with a functioning highlighter and a f**k left to give.

Look, that sounded self-righteous, and it likely was. Still, remember, always remember, that the “owners” of the US National Security State (and thus, this whole country) count on our apathy, and can’t smoothly rule the roost without it. And they’re so certain, here in the year 2020, that they’ve got that locked down, that they aren’t even afraid to (insincerely) pay fealty to transparency through assenting to such a remarkably candid SIGAR admission of “stalemate” and failure. The warfare state elites may as well roll-up hard copies of the report and poke us right in the eyes, folks. They’re laughing at you! So please, get pissed; fight back. Read…rally…and, if necessary…revolt!

Be seeing you

Afghanistan war: US and Afghan Taliban start partial truce ...

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

#WalkAway: Movement’s Founder Explains Why Americans are Leaving Democratic Party en Masse – Sputnik International

Posted by M. C. on February 24, 2020

The #WalkAway movement launched in mid-2018 has already brought hundreds of thousands under its banner across the US. The nationwide campaign’s founder, Brandon Straka, a newly converted Republican…

Not much of an improvement.

A longtime believer in the Dem-proclaimed agenda of tolerance and human rights protection he witnessed how the left had devolved into “intolerant, inflexible, illogical, hateful, misguided and ill-informed” group that was absorbed by the very characteristics they claimed to fight against.

Furthermore, one can see how the Dems are pushing towards “anti-Americanism” by which Straka means anti-capitalism, anti-constitutionalism, a socialist and globalist political agenda – “all these things that Americans have traditionally rejected and that are antithetical to what has made America successful in the first place”.

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/202002221078379920-walkaway-movements-founder-explains-why-americans-are-leaving-democratic-party-en-masse/

The #WalkAway movement launched in mid-2018 has already brought hundreds of thousands under its banner across the US. The nationwide campaign’s founder, Brandon Straka, a newly converted Republican, explains why he turned his back on American liberals and why he’s calling upon his former party loyalists to join him.

Brandon Straka, a hairstylist and actor from New York City who is openly gay and voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 would make a perfect liberal icon but with one crucial proviso: he no longer is liberal.

On 26 May 2018, Straka released a video that swiftly got hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube. “Once upon a time, I was a liberal,” he started off, explaining why he had broken with the Democratic Party and shifted to the right.

​A longtime believer in the Dem-proclaimed agenda of tolerance and human rights protection he witnessed how the left had devolved into “intolerant, inflexible, illogical, hateful, misguided and ill-informed” group that was absorbed by the very characteristics they claimed to fight against.

On the top of this, according to Straka, American liberals have been manipulating information and producing hoaxes, including the Trump-Russia “collusion delusion”. This is why he “walked away” from the Democratic Party and this is why he is urging others to do the same.

​”I launched my campaign because I realised after the election of Donald Trump in 2016 that the liberal media that I had trusted my entire life as a lifelong Democrat myself was being incredibly dishonest, incredibly deceptive and in many circumstances creating entirely false narratives and driving false stories about who Donald Trump is, who his supporters are, what Republicans are all about”, says Straka. “I really discovered due to his election the ways in which the liberal media was manipulating the notion of racism, homophobia, bigotry, etc. and kind of almost glorifying hate-crime hoaxes and other things like this, while demonising Donald Trump and his base”.

The #WalkAway movement kicked off by Straka has to date brought together more than half a million people who joined the movement on all of the social media platforms, according to the founder. There are also tens of thousands of written and video testimonials by people who decided to follow Straka’s suit.

​The campaigner highlights that the movement is gaining momentum: “Every day we are getting new testimonials from black Americans, from Hispanic Americans, LGBT Americans, it’s truly a movement for all people of all backgrounds to leave the Democratic Party”.

Despite movement is widely spread across the US it has got little if any coverage by the American left-leaning mainstream media.

“When they do cover it, they lie about it”, Straka highlights. “I mean all the coverage we’ve really got is them saying that this is a ‘Russia propaganda’ and ‘Russian bots’. I think that they find this movement to be very disturbing and very scary and a real threat to what they are doing and that’s why I think they engage in the very tactic that caused me to walk away in the first place which is deceptive media, yellow journalism, mistruth to drive their narrative and try to hypnotise and brainwash the American people into believing false narratives and controlling their behaviour and ultimately controlling the way that they vote”.

According to the #WalkAway founder the Nevada debate dubbed by some media as “the most brutal yet” has once again demonstrated that the Dems are “completely out of touch at this point with the American people and what is resonating with the American people”.

Furthermore, one can see how the Dems are pushing towards “anti-Americanism” by which Straka means anti-capitalism, anti-constitutionalism, a socialist and globalist political agenda – “all these things that Americans have traditionally rejected and that are antithetical to what has made America successful in the first place”.

Be seeing you

What’s wrong with the Libertarian Party? | Global Liberty ...

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Only way to stop Amazon Alexa recording you at home is to BIN it, experts warn

Posted by M. C. on February 24, 2020

Read the rest if you want. You already know enough.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/11012582/amazon-alexa-recording-audio-home-listen/

“Earlier this week, an ex-Amazon exec admitted that workers do listen to your conversations through Alexa.”

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Comments Off on Only way to stop Amazon Alexa recording you at home is to BIN it, experts warn

Bernie And Elizabeth’s Politics Of Envy – An INDEPENDENT Mind

Posted by M. C. on February 24, 2020

Politicians tap into envy for political ends. Politicians manipulate people to support policies which feed their primitive desire to strike down the rich and successful. This is why envy politics can be so destructive to society—it divides us rather than brings us together; it tears us down.

It makes you question their motives especially when you examine the record of capitalism and free markets. It has only been in the past 200 of the 100,000 years or so of human history that we have escaped mass poverty. If you think about it, poverty has been the natural condition of mankind since we evolved large brains and opposing thumbs.

The magic that happened was what we call capitalism or the free market system: individual liberty, private property, free markets, free trade, capital, entrepreneurship, and tolerance. These forces literally rocketed us into prosperity.

https://anindependentmind.com/2019/11/05/bernie-and-elizabeths-politics-of-envy/#more-979

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are angry critics of free markets and rich people. They paint a bleak picture of America as a population of downtrodden, defeated people subjugated by billionaires and capitalism. The record is just the opposite, so one wonders why they and their supporters have this view of our world. The answer is that their anger is driven by envy and a desire to deprive successful people of the fruits of their success, a thing the envious have never achieved. Politicians exploit this primitive emotion for their own political ends which is the power to control us.

*************************************************

“Envy” is “to wish that you had a quality or possession that another person has”. In psychological terms, it refers to an emotion which “occurs when a person lacks another’s [perceived] superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it“. All major religions condemn envy (as in one of Christianity’s seven deadly sins).

The Wikipedia article cites envy as a major source of unhappiness (“It begins with the almost frantic sense of emptiness inside oneself…”). It is a powerful human emotion and it has the potential to motivate one to harm those who are the object of one’s envy.

The most interesting aspect of envy is that it changes and diminishes with age as we are more accepting of who we are, except for one thing: money. It was the only envious trait that increased with age.

Politicians tap into envy for political ends. Politicians manipulate people to support policies which feed their primitive desire to strike down the rich and successful. This is why envy politics can be so destructive to society—it divides us rather than brings us together; it tears us down.

The leading Progressive presidential candidates are scrambling over each other to exploit envy. To make sure I was not exaggerating their positions, I just read all of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders’ policies. Almost every issue they addressed was based on envy.

The core of their Progressive beliefs is that the game is rigged in favor of the rich and biased against workers, women, people of color, veterans, LGBTQ+, native Americans, convicts, immigrants, tenants, homeowners, the poor, students, farmers, the sick, and the aged. I might have missed some interest groups.

The problem, they say, is greedy capitalists whose debt-fueled corporations produce shoddy, overpriced products, and exploit underpaid, overworked, abused, and mistreated workers. These capitalists, a mere 1% of the population, have a stranglehold on Washington and use their political power to grab 99% of the wealth and squeeze the other 99% of honest hardworking people who futilely struggle against this corrupt system. Capitalists, they say, don’t want you to make a decent living, get an education, receive good medical care, have good housing, have economic security in your old age, or live in a clean environment.

Their solution is that the government, through a vast river of social programs funded by taxing the rich, can cure these problems and create a just, fair economic and political system (which, obviously, isn’t capitalism). As a corollary, they wish to confiscate and redistribute the wealth of the corrupt and disgusting “ultra-rich”.

If you doubt my summation of their programs and policies, go to Bernie and Elizabeth’s web sites and see for yourself.

Here is a snippet from Bernie’s website:

For too long, these greedy corporate CEOs have rigged the tax code, killed market competition, and crushed the lives and power of workers and communities across America. Year after year we’ve seen wages slashed and thousands of workers laid off, all while the richest corporate CEOs pay themselves huge bonuses.

These people hate capitalism, entrepreneurs, successful corporations, and rich (i.e., successful) people. Every one of their policies assumes an evil strawman (capitalism, billionaires, corporations) and imposes draconian rules to control this “corrupt” behavior.

Everything they say about capitalism is wrong. Perhaps you might think this is an arrogant, absurd thing to say, but their analysis of society, the economy, and capitalism is based on falsehoods, statistical manipulation, incorrect historical analysis, and theories that have been proven wrong throughout mankind’s history. Their Progressive policies will destroy our dynamic economy and condemn us to stagnation and poverty.

It makes you question their motives especially when you examine the record of capitalism and free markets. It has only been in the past 200 of the 100,000 years or so of human history that we have escaped mass poverty. If you think about it, poverty has been the natural condition of mankind since we evolved large brains and opposing thumbs.

The magic that happened was what we call capitalism or the free market system: individual liberty, private property, free markets, free trade, capital, entrepreneurship, and tolerance. These forces literally rocketed us into prosperity.

It is a myth that poverty is caused by capitalism, billionaires, and corporations. They are the fount of progress. Wealth is created by entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs who start enterprises that succeed in the marketplace. Jobs didn’t become a billionaire because he forced us to buy iPhones.

It is also a myth that progress is confined to the 1%. The belief that inequality is the cause of poverty is a myth. The whole concept of inequality in a free market society is irrelevant. Everyone in a capitalist society has benefited, even those at the bottom. There would be nothing more destructive to our economic well-being than eliminating billionaires: those who have become successful by meeting the needs of consumers and who have accumulated capital that feeds growth, innovation, and well-being.

Progressive politicians would have you believe that they have the wisdom, knowledge, and ability to govern us and radically change society for the good. All they ask is the power to do that. They assume that we in the private sector are fallible human beings, more prone to error than success. Yet somehow, we are fallible but they aren’t. You would have to be a college professor to believe that.

Here are some things to ponder. There has never been a regime with the powers as vast as those demanded by our Progressive politicians that has eliminated poverty and “inequality”. There has never been a regime with the powers as vast as those demanded by our Progressive politicians that has not degenerated into some form of economic malaise or totalitarianism.

It is important to see Progressive politicians like Bernie and Elizabeth for what they are: angry, envious people. Theirs is a story repeated often in history to the detriment of mankind: a messianic utopian vision that can only be accomplished by the coercive power of government. The more power they have, the less freedom and prosperity we have. If you don’t believe that then it would be hypocritical to not crush your smart phone.

Be seeing you

facebook_1573608373412.jpg

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Tomgram: Danny Sjursen, Why No Retired Generals Oppose America’s Forever Wars | TomDispatch

Posted by M. C. on February 24, 2020

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176665/tomgram%3A_danny_sjursen%2C_why_no_retired_generals_oppose_america%27s_forever_wars/

Posted by Danny Sjursen

In early 2017, U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen, who first stumbled upon TomDispatch while on duty in Afghanistan in 2011, wrote to the site wondering if he might do a piece for it. He got in touch, in part, because a former Army colonel, Andrew Bacevich, whom he admired, was already regularly featured here, as were other former U.S. military officers like retired Air Force lieutenant colonel William Astore. TomDispatch had, in fact, been one of the earliest places to highlight the work of former military officers critical of this country’s forever wars across the Greater Middle East and Africa. (After all, or so it then seemed to me, who could have grasped those disasters better?)

That February, when Sjursen wrote his first article for TomDispatch on the wars that had begun in 2001 and then (as now) had “no end in sight,” something struck me about the new administration of President Donald Trump. He had just filled key positions around him with generals from those very wars (all of whom are now gone from his administration). From James Mattis to John Kelly to H.R. McMaster, all of them were visibly wedded to those very never-ending conflicts. So, in introducing Sjursen’s inaugural piece, I wrote, “Under the circumstances, it’s good to know that, even if not at the highest ranks of the U.S. military, there are officers who have been able to take in what they experienced up close and personal in Iraq and Afghanistan and make some new — not desperately old — sense of it.”

Today, in his 26th piece for this site, Sjursen takes up that very subject: in a military that certainly has critics and dissidents in its lower ranks and its officer corps who have grasped the disastrous nature of almost 19 years of losing wars across large swaths of the planet, why are there no critical generals (or admirals) around? As he points out, the system that produces those flag officers is not set up to allow for the rise of anyone unwilling to buy in big time to the American way of war as it now exists across far too much of the planet. Tom

Where Have You Gone, Smedley Butler?
A Nation Turns Its Lonely Eyes to (Someone Like) You…
By Danny Sjursen

There once lived an odd little man — five feet nine inches tall and barely 140 pounds sopping wet — who rocked the lecture circuit and the nation itself. For all but a few activist insiders and scholars, U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlington Butler is now lost to history. Yet more than a century ago, this strange contradiction of a man would become a national war hero, celebrated in pulp adventure novels, and then, 30 years later, as one of this country’s most prominent antiwar and anti-imperialist dissidents.

Raised in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and educated in Quaker (pacifist) schools, the son of an influential congressman, he would end up serving in nearly all of America’s “Banana Wars” from 1898 to 1931. Wounded in combat and a rare recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor, he would retire as the youngest, most decorated major general in the Marines.

A teenage officer and a certified hero during an international intervention in the Chinese Boxer Rebellion of 1900, he would later become a constabulary leader of the Haitian gendarme, the police chief of Philadelphia (while on an approved absence from the military), and a proponent of Marine Corps football. In more standard fashion, he would serve in battle as well as in what might today be labeled peacekeeping, counterinsurgency, and advise-and-assist missions in Cuba, China, the Philippines, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, France, and China (again). While he showed early signs of skepticism about some of those imperial campaigns or, as they were sardonically called by critics at the time, “Dollar Diplomacy” operations — that is, military campaigns waged on behalf of U.S. corporate business interests — until he retired he remained the prototypical loyal Marine.

But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. He began to blast the imperialist foreign policy and interventionist bullying in which he’d only recently played such a prominent part. Eventually, in 1935 during the Great Depression, in what became a classic passage in his memoir, which he titled “War Is a Racket,” he wrote: “I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service… And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers.”

Seemingly overnight, the famous war hero transformed himself into an equally acclaimed antiwar speaker and activist in a politically turbulent era. Those were, admittedly, uncommonly anti-interventionist years, in which veterans and politicians alike promoted what (for America, at least) had been fringe ideas. This was, after all, the height of what later pro-war interventionists would pejoratively label American “isolationism.”

Nonetheless, Butler was unique (for that moment and certainly for our own) in his unapologetic amenability to left-wing domestic politics and materialist critiques of American militarism. In the last years of his life, he would face increasing criticism from his former admirer, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the military establishment, and the interventionist press. This was particularly true after Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany invaded Poland and later France. Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind, hindsight undoubtedly proved Butler’s virulent opposition to U.S. intervention in World War II wrong.

Nevertheless, the long-term erasure of his decade of antiwar and anti-imperialist activism and the assumption that all his assertions were irrelevant has proven historically deeply misguided. In the wake of America’s brief but bloody entry into the First World War, the skepticism of Butler (and a significant part of an entire generation of veterans) about intervention in a new European bloodbath should have been understandable. Above all, however, his critique of American militarism of an earlier imperial era in the Pacific and in Latin America remains prescient and all too timely today, especially coming as it did from one of the most decorated and high-ranking general officers of his time. (In the era of the never-ending war on terror, such a phenomenon is quite literally inconceivable.)

Smedley Butler’s Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different sort of organization than today’s highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between the careers of Butler and today’s generation of forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned wars around the world. Butler’s conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans to China, whereas today’s generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia, but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed economic and imperial interests.

Nonetheless, whereas this country’s imperial campaigns of the first third of the twentieth century generated a Smedley Butler, the hyper-interventionism of the first decades of this century hasn’t produced a single even faintly comparable figure. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Why that is matters and illustrates much about the U.S. military establishment and contemporary national culture, none of it particularly encouraging.

Why No Antiwar Generals

When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised, remarkably unsuccessful American wars. As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are more of them today than there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a public critic of today’s failing wars.

Instead, the principal patriotic dissent against those terror wars has come from retired colonels, lieutenant colonels, and occasionally more junior officers (like me), as well as enlisted service members. Not that there are many of us to speak of either. I consider it disturbing (and so should you) that I personally know just about every one of the retired military figures who has spoken out against America’s forever wars.

The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson; Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich; and Iraq veteran and Afghan War whistleblower, retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis. All three have proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and — on some level — cherished personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques.

Something must account for veteran dissenters topping out at the level of colonel. Obviously, there are personal reasons why individual officers chose early retirement or didn’t make general or admiral. Still, the system for selecting flag officers should raise at least a few questions when it comes to the lack of antiwar voices among retired commanders. In fact, a selection committee of top generals and admirals is appointed each year to choose the next colonels to earn their first star. And perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn that, according to numerous reports, “the members of this board are inclined, if not explicitly motivated, to seek candidates in their own image — officers whose careers look like theirs.” At a minimal level, such a system is hardly built to foster free thinkers, no less breed potential dissidents.

Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the highly publicized “surge” in Iraq, had to leave that theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his — future Trump National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster — earned his star.

Mainstream national security analysts reported on this affair at the time as if it were a major scandal, since most of them were convinced that Petraeus and his vaunted counterinsurgency or “COINdinista” protégés and their “new” war-fighting doctrine had the magic touch that would turn around the failing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Petraeus tried to apply those very tactics twice — once in each country — as did acolytes of his later, and you know the results of that.

But here’s the point: it took an eleventh-hour intervention by America’s most acclaimed general of that moment to get new stars handed out to prominent colonels who had, until then, been stonewalled by Cold War-bred flag officers because they were promoting different (but also strangely familiar) tactics in this country’s wars. Imagine, then, how likely it would be for such a leadership system to produce genuine dissenters with stars of any serious sort, no less a crew of future Smedley Butlers.

At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with “professionalization” after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft, and create an “all-volunteer force.” The elimination of conscription, as predicted by critics at the time, created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding America’s wars by erasing whatever “skin in the game” most citizens had.

More than just helping to squelch civilian antiwar activism, though, the professionalization of the military, and of the officer corps in particular, ensured that any future Smedley Butlers would be left in the dust (or in retirement at the level of lieutenant colonel or colonel) by a system geared to producing faux warrior-monks. Typical of such figures is current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Mark Milley. He may speak gruffly and look like a man with a head of his own, but typically he’s turned out to be just another yes-man for another war-power-hungry president.

One group of generals, however, reportedly now does have it out for President Trump — but not because they’re opposed to endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn’t “listen enough to military advice” on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day.

What Would Smedley Butler Think Today?

In his years of retirement, Smedley Butler regularly focused on the economic component of America’s imperial war policies. He saw clearly that the conflicts he had fought in, the elections he had helped rig, the coups he had supported, and the constabularies he had formed and empowered in faraway lands had all served the interests of U.S. corporate investors. Though less overtly the case today, this still remains a reality in America’s post-9/11 conflicts, even on occasion embarrassingly so (as when the Iraqi ministry of oil was essentially the only public building protected by American troops as looters tore apart the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, in the post-invasion chaos of April 2003). Mostly, however, such influence plays out far more subtly than that, both abroad and here at home where those wars help maintain the record profits of the top weapons makers of the military-industrial complex.

That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn’t yet exist and the path from the military to, say, United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say about the modern phenomenon of the “revolving door” in Washington.

Of course, he served in a very different moment, one in which military funding and troop levels were still contested in Congress. As a longtime critic of capitalist excesses who wrote for leftist publications and supported the Socialist Party candidate in the 1936 presidential elections, Butler would have found today’s nearly trillion-dollar annual defense budgets beyond belief. What the grizzled former Marine long ago identified as a treacherous nexus between warfare and capital “in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives” seems to have reached its natural end point in the twenty-first century. Case in point: the record (and still rising) “defense” spending of the present moment, including — to please a president — the creation of a whole new military service aimed at the full-scale militarization of space.

Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution Americans still truly trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be to have a high-ranking, highly decorated, charismatic retired general in the Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around those forever wars of ours. Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the military system of our moment.

Of course, Butler didn’t exactly end his life triumphantly. In late May 1940, having lost 25 pounds due to illness and exhaustion — and demonized as a leftist, isolationist crank but still maintaining a whirlwind speaking schedule — he checked himself into the Philadelphia Navy Yard Hospital for a “rest.” He died there, probably of some sort of cancer, four weeks later. Working himself to death in his 10-year retirement and second career as a born-again antiwar activist, however, might just have constituted the very best service that the two-time Medal of Honor winner could have given the nation he loved to the very end.

Someone of his credibility, character, and candor is needed more than ever today. Unfortunately, this military generation is unlikely to produce such a figure. In retirement, Butler himself boldly confessed that, “like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical…”

Today, generals don’t seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more’s the pity…

Be seeing you

War_Is_a_Racket_(cover)

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »