MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Smedley Butler’

President Trump Labels Generals as Pawns of the Military-Industrial Complex | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on September 20, 2020

For instance, when George Marshall oversaw the deployment of 8.3 million GIs across four continents in World War II, he did so with the assistance of only three other four-star generals. In retirement, Marshall refused to sit on any corporate boards, and passed on multiple lucrative book deals, lest he give the impression that he was profiting from his military record. As he told one publisher, “he had not spent his life serving the government in order to sell his life story to the Saturday Evening Post.”

Contrast that to the bloated, top-heavy military establishment of today, where an unprecedented forty-one four-star generals oversee only 1.3 million men and women-at-arms.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/president-trump-labels-generals-as-pawns-of-the-military-industrial-complex/

by

Once again, the whispers of phantoms masquerading as administration officials have attempted to put Donald Trump on the defensive only two months before the fall election. And in typical fashion, the roused president has gone on an immediate rhetorical offensive.

Trump has doubled down on his affirmations towards the U.S. military and the American soldier, while simultaneously confronting the class of generals who command them. “I’m not saying the military’s in love with me—the soldiers are,” Trump said at a Labor Day press conference. “The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.”

This is a dramatic shift in perspective from the man who spent the first two years of his presidency surrounding himself with top brass like Michael Flynn, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, and James Mattis (along with almost being beguiled into nominating David Petraeus as Secretary of State). Perhaps Trump learned the hard way that the generals of the forever wars don’t measure up to the twentieth-century soldiers he adulated growing up.

For instance, when George Marshall oversaw the deployment of 8.3 million GIs across four continents in World War II, he did so with the assistance of only three other four-star generals. In retirement, Marshall refused to sit on any corporate boards, and passed on multiple lucrative book deals, lest he give the impression that he was profiting from his military record. As he told one publisher, “he had not spent his life serving the government in order to sell his life story to the Saturday Evening Post.”

Contrast that to the bloated, top-heavy military establishment of today, where an unprecedented forty-one four-star generals oversee only 1.3 million men and women-at-arms. These men, selected and groomed because of their safe habits, spend years patting themselves on the back for managing wars-not-won, awaiting the day they can cash in. According to an analysis by The Boston Globe, in the mid-1990s nearly 50% of three- and four-star generals went on to work as consultants or executives for the arms industry. In 2006, at the height of the Iraq War, that number swelled to over 80% of retirees.

The examples are as endless as America’s foreign occupations: former Director of Naval Intelligence Jack Dorsett joined the board of Northrop-Grumman; he was later followed by former Air Force Chief of Staff Mark Welsh; meanwhile, former Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff James Cartwright went to Raytheon; former Chairs of the Joint Chiefs—the highest ranking position in the military—William J. Crowe, John Shalikashvili,, Richard Myers, and Joseph Dunford went on to work for General Dynamics, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, and Lockheed-Martin, respectively.

General James “Mad Dog” Mattis, in between his forced retirement from the Marine Corps and appointment as Secretary of Defense, joined the board of General Dynamics where he was paid over a million dollars in salary and benefits. Returning to public life, Mattis then spent two years cajoling President Trump into keeping the U.S. military engaged in places as disparate as Afghanistan, Syria, and Africa. “Sir, we’re doing it to prevent a bomb from going off in Times Square,” Mattis told his commander-in-chief. Left unsaid was that a strategic withdrawal would also lead to a precipitous decline in Mattis’ future stock options, which he regained after he rejoined General Dynamics following his December 2018 resignation.

That resignation might have been premature, however. It was only a matter of weeks before Trump’s announced withdrawal from Syria, the impetus for Mattis’ departure, was reversed. Hundreds of U.S. soldiers continue to illegally occupy the north-east of the country. That’s in addition to the thousands of Americans still kicking dust in Iraq and Afghanistan, contrary to the president’s “America First” pledge.

And Trump is as guilty as any of his subordinates when it comes to coddling the military-industrial complex, gushing over billion dollar arms deals and their manufactured jobs numbers. It remains to be seen whether his latest announcement of a partial withdrawal from Iraq by the end of the month will turn out as phony as the others.

Whether meaningful or empty, Donald Trump’s words remain a significant departure from the norm. He is one of the first prominent figures in living memory—and certainly the first president, ever—to connect the controlling influence of the military-industrial complex to the actions and advice of U.S. generals. For this he has been compared to the man who first coined the term, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, although even Ike never impugned the motivations of his fellow four-stars.

Trump’s language more closely resembles that of Major General Smedley Butler, who at the time of his death was the most decorated marine in U.S. history. “The professional soldiers and sailors don’t want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms,” Butler wrote in his 1935 book War is a Racket.

To eliminate this corrupting influence, Butler advocated an egalitarian price control to prevent the arms industry—and their pet generals—from profiting off the blood of American boys. “Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our steel companies and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted—to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.”

Today that would be the equivalent of $1,733 a month, the same as a first year private in the army. It’s a far cry from the $96 million the CEOs of the Pentagon’s top five contractors—all listed above—were collectively paid in 2016.

Let’s call it a starting point.

This article was originally featured at The American Conservative

Be seeing you

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Will a Military Coup Undo the November Elections, Donald Trump and the Republic Itself? — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on September 19, 2020

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/09/16/will-military-coup-undo-november-elections-trump-and-republic-itself/

Matthew Ehret

On March 20, I published an article called Why Assume There will be a 2020 Election? where I laid out the existential threat of a new Wall Street military Coup which would not only render elections obsolete, but would impose a new fascist hell onto America and the world.

In that article I discussed the importance of General Smedley Butler’s strategic decision to expose the Wall Street plot to overthrow the newly elected president Franklin Roosevelt who was in the midst of waging a war on both Wall Street, the City of London and the chaos these financiers engineered during the great depression. Butler’s congressional testimony put the spotlight on these shadow creatures and gave FDR the breathing space and public supported needed to wage war on America’s deep state while pushing a bold healing of the nation under the New Deal.

That article was followed by a sequel on April 3 entitled Standing on the Precipice of Martial Law which featured the story of John F Kennedy’s battles with the London-directed Deep State and Military Industrial Complex in depth and also how JFK worked closely with the film maker John Frankenheimer to expose these intrigues to the American people by turning the book 7 Days in May into a film (unfortunately released only after other means were found to depose of the president). That article also dealt with the various PNAC-affiliated “planning scenarios” run over a year before September 11, 2001 which established the groundwork for a new type of Coup d’état within America with Cheney’s Continuity of Government protocols, the vast expansion of biowarfare infrastructure under the Bio-Shield Act, regime change wars abroad and police state measures within America itself.

The Trump Factor

After years of ongoing deep state penetration of the USA since JFK’s murder, a surprising nationalist dark horse president found himself in the Oval Office in the form of Donald Trump and just two months away from the 2020 elections, the threat of a new Military Coup organized by international financiers is as high as ever.

In his Labor Day press conference, Trump, who has distinguished himself as the first president since Eisenhower to call out the “military industrial complex” threw down the gauntlet saying:

“Biden … sent our youth off to fight in these crazy endless wars. It’s one of the reasons the military— I’m not saying the military is in love with me; the soldiers are. The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy. But we’re getting out of the endless wars…. And I said, ‘That’s good. Let’s bring our soldiers back home. Some people don’t like to come home. Some people like to continue to spend money.’ One cold-hearted globalist betrayal after another, and that’s what it was.”

This statement should be taken both as a rallying call for patriots to use what is possibly their last chance to save the collapsing republic and avoiding world war three.

On September 5, Colonel Richard Black (Former State Senator and Judge Advocate) delivered a presentation at a Schiller Institute seminar where the colonel warned of the interconnected pattern of statements by former high ranking military officials either openly calling for a military coup (Lt. Colonels Paul Yingling and John Nagl on August 11) or celebrating the anarchist mobs threatening to tear the republic apart. To the latter group, Col. Black named former Defense Secretary James Mattis, Colin Powell, and Col. John Allen who have all questioned the authority of the President and touted their belief that Trump would not leave the White House willingly in January 2021. The actual source for those concerns didn’t come from any actual evidence obtained from reality however, but in fact arose out of “November chaos scenario war games” advanced by Soros/Clinton/Neocon-affiliated think tanks like the Transition Integrity Project which ran Event 201-like “fictional” scenario “war games”.

In one of the June TIP scenarios, Trump wins the popular November vote by a landslide, but due to the slow influx of mail-in ballots, it is soon revealed that Biden is the winner, whereby Trump supposedly locks the doors of the White House refusing to leave. In the TIP “game”, Biden was played by none other than John Podesta. These scenarios were again replayed more recently by a DNC-connected outfit named Hawkfish funded by Michael Bloomberg which was covered on Axios running a more detailed version of this computer model called “Red Mirage”.

Warning of a military coup, Col. Black stated “The coordinated release of scathing remarks by senior officials coupled with publication of a letter advocating a military coup suggests a deep sickness within the Pentagon and within our constitutional structure.”

As RT reported, between 2008-2018, 380 high ranking pentagon officials have been hired by defense contractors including 25 generals, 9 admirals, 43 Lieutenant Generals and 23 Vice Admirals… which provides just one sampling of the potential for treachery prevalent within the sick constitutional structure.

Other Soros-affiliated operations have sprung forth on multiple fronts to ensure maximum instability leading up to the elections. Beyond the obvious anarchy operations within the streets of America itself, a Canadian-based Soros-funded anarchist group called the Adbusters/Blackspot Collective which claims credit for coordinating Occupy Wall Street in 2010 has unleashed a 60-day “Lay Siege to the White House” offensive beginning on September 17. The British-Canadian pedigree of this act represents a long-standing tradition of anti-U.S. operations stretching back to the Aaron Burr plot of “northern secession” with Canada in 1804, the Montreal-directed assassinations of Abraham Lincoln AND John Kennedy to name but a few.

As Whitney Webb pointed out in her excellent assessment of this operation: “other known members of the TIP include David Frum (the Atlantic), William Kristol (Project for a New American Century, The Bulwark), Max Boot (the Washington Post), Donna Brazile (ex-DNC), John Podesta (former campaign manager – Clinton 2016), Chuck Hagel (former Secretary of Defense), Reed Galen (co-founder of the Lincoln Project) and Norm Ornstein (American Enterprise Institute).”

As Webb lays out in her article and as I documented in my April 2020 ‘Standing on the Precipice of Martial Law’, the new “Continuity of Government” protocols created in February to deal with the inevitable breakdown of America’s governing mechanisms under COVID pandemonium are very much still in effect. A parallel chain of command under jarhead war hawk General Terrance O’Shaughnessy (head of both NORTHCOM and NORAD) has been established and members of that parallel government await the moment to come forth in bunkers 650 meters under a mountain in Cheyenne, Colorado to “wait out the COVID-19 crisis”.

Traitors tied to the Military Industrial Complex, and other NATO-phile unipolarist ideologues among the military are undoubtedly itching for action, and unless extraordinarily creative and speedy maneuvers can be accomplished by Trump and his trusted allies (who number few and far between) in tandem with his potential allies among the Multipolar Alliance, then all hope for the republic, and global war avoidance more broadly may be lost.

© 2010 – 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.

Be seeing you

 

 

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 »

War is a Racket & Not What It Seems To The Majority of People: Major General Smedley Butler – Collective Evolution

Posted by M. C. on June 4, 2019

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/06/03/war-is-a-racket-not-what-it-seems-to-the-majority-of-people-major-general-smedley-butler/

By

In Brief

  • The Facts:The highest ranking marine and most decorated US solider at the time, Smedley, told the truth about war in 1935 and how it’s not what we really think it is. It’s not about protection from harm, it’s about big business and special interests.
  • Reflect On:Why do so many people believe that war is necessary, and that the military establishment is here to protect our freedom? Is it true, or is it simply propaganda to blind us from what’s really going on?

War is not what most people think it is. We’re told that war is necessary, that soldiers are and have been overseas ‘fighting for our freedom’ and sacrificing their lives in order to keep our homeland safe. It’s a narrative that’s still pushed today and it’s backed by a massive propaganda campaign that beams patriotism into the hearts of the masses; meanwhile, very few people ever question what’s actually happening. We are made to believe that war and the entire military establishment are necessities, but they’re not. People have been sharing this opinion for a very long time, those of us who actually think for ourselves instead of simply believing everything that’s presented to us without ever questioning it. Take Mark Twain, for example, who explained the behaviour of the global elite to which I am referring to quite well:

The statesman will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them: and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception. (source)

Today, this represents so much more than an opinion…

Gabbard herself was quoted as saying that the “CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. This support has allowed al-Qaeda and their fellow terrorist organizations to establish strongholds throughout Syria, including in Aleppo.”

The idea that the latest gas attack in Syria was fabricated by the western military alliance in order to justify intervention in that country clearly outlines how ‘fake’ things are. These fake terrorist attacks, both home and abroad, are not only used to justify military action, but also to take away our rights here at home and justify surveillance and a heightened national security state. This article is not going to go into the Syria attacks, but I put more information in a recent article titled “BBC Producer Blows The Whistle & Admits The “Gas Attack” Footage From Syria “Was Staged.” 

Another example of false-flag terrorism would be 9/11, as all of the witness testimonies and published research suggest it was a controlled demolition, and many believe it was orchestrated by the US government.  

Think about that for a second: The same powers that claim to be protecting us from and fighting the ‘war on terror’ could be the same ones creating it. Read the rest of this entry »

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

‘Peace Through Strength’ Is a Racket – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on February 19, 2018

https://original.antiwar.com/srichman/2018/02/16/peace-strength-racket/

I will acknowledge that the PTSD has surface appeal. Why not show the world the United States is so awesomely powerful that no one in his right mind would even think to get on its wrong side? It seems to make sense in a practical sort of way.

Once people believe that, of course, they are softened up to accept unlimited military spending and the concomitant deficits and debt. As John T. Flynn used to say, military spending is a favorite of big-government types precisely because the conservatives won’t object. Conservatives rail against even small amounts of so-called foreign aid and welfare, but they drool over monstrous sums for the armed forces and spy agencies. Read the rest of this entry »

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

North Korea, Iran, Cuba-Why are They Still A Problem After More Than 50 Years Of US ‘Diplomacy’?

Posted by M. C. on October 1, 2017

Sixty some years of chances to make peace with North Korea. Fifty some years to make peace with Cuba. Iran? Even before the CIA overthrew their government in ’53 the US had been messing with them.
Why do they still pose a threat after all this time? Perhaps these quotes from General Smedley Butler’s ‘War Is A Racket‘ can help explain.
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

                                                              War_Is_a_Racket_(cover)

Read the rest of this entry »

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

War And Why, According To Smedley Butler, The Winners Are Always The Same

Posted by M. C. on August 2, 2015

July 28 was the one hundred year anniversary of the US Marine invasion of Haiti.  A strangely honest accounting of the event is available from the US state department.

Between 1911 and 1915, seven presidents were assassinated or overthrown in Haiti, increasing U.S. policymakers’ fear of foreign intervention. In 1914, the Wilson administration sent U.S. Marines into Haiti. They removed $500,000 from the Haitian National Bank in December of 1914 for safe-keeping in New York, thus giving the United States control of the bank.

Safe-keeping!  For whom? Read the rest of this entry »

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

Memorial Day-The Wasted Lives No One Talks About.

Posted by M. C. on May 24, 2015

Memorial Day is about honoring the sacrifice of those who died to keep our freedoms.

The problem I have is all the poor folks that died thinking they were defending their fellow countrymen. When, in the early twentieth century for example, they were dying for the United Fruit Company in Central America or John Rockefeller, Morgan Bank and Remington in WWI.

This was the world of Marine general Smedley Butler.  This what he had to say in 1933.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

What Makes Them Join the Military? Do They Know Whom They Really Serve?

Posted by M. C. on December 7, 2013

I never was in the military. My draft lottery numbers were always good. I didn’t want to die in a snake infested rice paddy or in a tiger cage. My dad was in the Army Air Force during the so-called good war. The Air Force is probably where I would have gone if pressed. Cheap private pilot lessons!

My dad enlisted because his number was coming up. Why do people join today?

A sense of duty, not yet knowing their life plan, a job, free stuff thanks to the GI bill? I am sure there are many reasons.

But whom do today’s GIs serve? Whom are they really protecting? Do most know? I doubt it. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »