The Nixon Years- rants- somewhat current...or maybe not

General Smedley Butler was a U.S.M.C. general who, in 1934, helped blow the whistle on an attempted fascist takeover of the U.S. Government. It was one year after Hitler assumed power in Germany and some rich Americans, among them the Du Ponts, GM president Knudsen, and others (J.P. Morgan banking friends) thought fascism might be a good way to fight what they perceived as a threat from socialism and communism. They started putting together plans for a coup and asked Gen. Butler, a noted war hero, to lead them. They chose Butler because he had spoken out against Roosevelt's New Deal programs and thought he would be sympathetic.

They miscalculated however and Butler immediately informed President Roosevelt of the treason. Once outed, the organizers backed down. The Morgans and Du Ponts however were never villified in the press because it would have created too much chaos in the wake of the Depression and perhaps cause another crash.

In his retirement, Gen. Smedley became a public speaker, here is an excerpt from one of his speeches.

Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

________________________

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.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. 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. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. 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 with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, 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 benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could 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

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Blackwater- The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army

Part II - Blackwater- The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Bill Moyers- "Big Media is Ravenous. It Never Gets Enough. Always Wants More. And it Will Stop at Nothing to Get It. These Conglomerates are an Empire, and they are Imperial."

YouTube - Bill Moyers at NCMR 2007 -- PART 2

___________________________________________________________________________________________

THE PERSISTENT SURVIVAL OF THE SUBJECTIVE

ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINTS AND THE PERSISTENT SURVIVAL OF THE SUBJECTIVE Sometimes human existence seems so bad that it appears we need a "revolution," or maybe several-- political, economic, environmental, and ethical. Indeed many people, not to mention other biota, are in dire straights-- doomed at times, which sadly happens to be most of time. The "revolutions" required seem an insurmountable task, so massive that our demise via extinction seems more probable, and would be the best thing for this planet. Maybe one day that will occur being that 99% of the species that have graced this planet have vanished. Until then, peace and 'order' among the human species and those they interact with will only come with "true democracy." Where everyone has a voice, including the voiceless, where everyone and 'thing' is considered-- using reason and critical analysis of course (i.e. skepticism, and critical inquiry...science, a double edged sword). "Real" democracy is not complicated. It's a combination of liberty and equality, that necessarily and logically lead to Egalitarianism, a system with no system where there is "All Power to All People" (the motto of the Black Panthers). All power to all people means justice and equality for all people, and the logical equivalent of "no power to any person" (anarchism perhaps). It gets long and complicated if we involve the "subjective theory of value," not to mention each person's "ecological footprint," in the equation of a world with no oppression or subjugation. The knowledge and utility born from "The Enlightenment" did not rid humanity of stupidity and greed. And it failed to strip humankind of superstition, tradition, and barbarity. Perhaps the journey to a sustainable and peaceful planet is an evolutionary one, one that may take an extremely long time if we consider our embarrassing history. However, wouldn't it be nice to see it happen in this lifetime? Over-night even? Punctuated. Haven't we waited long enough? It's time to stop the damn Pendulum from swinging by breaking it-- smashing it to pieces so we can "complete" our evolution into compassionate upstanding beings...and not let anyone one person, or handful of people, screw our lives up for us. I'm not advocating a second final solution or all encompassing "Answer" to all our problems, but most of "our" problems can be traced to power itself. Lets call it, "competition" to give it a biological counterpart. Our own evolution and survival is tied to our "competition" for survival-- competing for resources. Living itself is a power struggle. It's Game Theory. Would life for the masses be better if there was less disparity in power, less struggle in competing for resources? Would it be better for those that have not and worse for those that have? This is where ecological footprints, equality, and the subjective theory of value fall into place. Having a footprint is an inescapable reality of life. The question is this dilemma: equality or inequality? Is this a false dilemma? Both can exist at the same time on different fronts or times and places, but not within the same. Biological systems are typically not islands, they are webs and chains of inter and intra relationships that often reach homeostasis. If something is amiss the balance is lost, and speciation and extinction take place. This balance can come from an imbalance in power and ties humanity to the rest of the planet and amongst ourselves because each person's survival is tied, sometimes distantly, to the survival (or death) of another. The haves take from the have nots, or get what they have because someone has not. Our survival, and the survival of other biota, is often barbaric, but humanity need not survive by barbary. Those that wish to live so can do so among themselves, but what about those that wish to be civil? Do we break away and form our own communities and economic relationships...how do we escape the long arm of the State that reinforces barbarism and maintains the oppression of one class or person by another? Our survival as a species into the distant future is more likely to occur if we tread lightly and afford each other the same opportunities-- a web of mutualism that is already inherent in the trophic webs of nature. Of course we can also continue to wear blinders and do whatever we what to whatever species we want, including our own, despite the damages. Humans perceive this dynamic and often write it off as "survival of the fittest." But survival is tied to mutualism, survival by by give-and-take. Most of the relationships we observe in nature took hundreds to millions of years to evolve. If the human animal continues down the road it has paved it will surly suffer the consequences and indeed become the next index fossil (ala Dr. Graffin). At the moment the status quo is capitalism...that is inequality and barbarity-- the survival of thieves, those that take. Will a non-capitalistic and mutualistic system of egalitarianism provide the balance we need to ensure our survival as homo sapiens modernize the world over? How "modern" can we get, how far can we go? Is primitivism (anarchrco or other) the answer? Primitivism will work, yet the amount of people likely to go to those lengths is small. We can keep all the tools, machines, and conveniences we have forged, but only if we learn to "spread the wealth" and tread lightly, that is carefully. Upon completing the myfootprint.org quiz or similar quizzes it is apparent that every hominid alive today cannot live with all the conveniences and consumption that occurs in the west. If everyone (6.6 billion at the moment) lived like me, a somewhat humble/modest human, we would need three planets to support us all. The average American's footprint is about 14 planets! As the rest of the world industrializes/modernizes something has got to give. Of course the inequality can also continue as it has. This however is not acceptable, to me anyway, and again it will lead to the suffering and demise of millions (or billions), as it already has. The gluttony can only continue in conjunction with "liberty for all" if the population of the planet is smaller, much smaller. What should we, or I, give up to make human life more equal, more fair, more just? Sustainable? The playing field needs to be equalized. The so-called "bottom-feeders" need to feed off those at the top and those at the top are going to have to part with luxuries. If not, the population density of humans needs to fall drastically. And no I don't know the magic number... What does all this have to do with the subjective theory of value? We will use the classic question of "Should a janitor make as much as a doctor?" They are both part of the machine/system that is a hospital. And they are equally valuable, if not vital. Take away one and the hospital falls apart. They both take training, though not equal, but at what time should the doctor's pay equal the janitor's? When the doctor has paid back their loans for education and the hours of training they put in? Who is to say the janitor isn't performing hard work and the doctor easy work?...thus the subjectivity of this entire scenario. The value our society or the "system" places on the doctor is greater, yet this is entirely subjective. Without the janitor you can throw sterility out the window and the doctor's value with it. In the end, at sometime, their pay (including everyone else in the hospital) should be equal because the value placed on their labor is entirely subjective past the point of the time invested to learn their respective professions. This a crude and cursory glance at the subjective theory of value, but it essentially states that every link in the chain, every cog in the machine that trades goods and services, is vital...it's a web of interdependence. One without the other equals zero, so everyone should all share the profits equally because everyone is essential to the operation(s) in question. At what point does one stop stealing from another? How great and how long should the disparity be allowed to persist? (as an aside it is worth checking out Parecon.org (and Michael Albert) who suggest the doctor do some janitorial work...and everyone do a little bit of everything...diversify and stop divisions/heirarchy on every level as much as possible...) I was told once that many people are "happy" when they approach 50 K a year. Whether this is true or not I don't know. Some people are satisfied with less and some would like to have all the money in the world. "Standard of living" and "happiness" are two more questionable, or subjective, ideas; and "satisfaction" can be added to that list as well. "Equality" is not a subjective ideal like value, monetary value that is. So what then do we establish, if at all, to ensure equality is valued? There are inequities in nature that do indeed provide balance, and sometimes this balance is achieved through the death of one species contributing to the survival of another (even within the species). The same can be said for economic/monetary inequality and the so-called balance and survival of the economic system that prevails over most of the planet at this time, capitalism. Millions of people and other biota suffer as result. However, we have the power to balance the power and reach a homeostatic condition where goods and services are distributed in a way that reduces the suffering of humans all over the world. This all sounds a lot like communism...from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs. Of course many of us, myself included, will have to give "things" up for this egalitarian equal-footprint-world to exist unless the population of the world falls drastically. Much of the above can be explained with Game Theory or the way life tries to maximize its returns from the choices it makes in order to survive (and perhaps participate in leisure activities). The choices each one of us makes is tied to our ecological footprint, which binds humans to many other organisms. Natural selection itself is the result of the relationships we have with each other and other biota. Sometimes our choices hurt others. When is this justifiable? Is the answer to this question also a subjective? Perhaps it is. What I am advocating is that "liberty and justice for all" or "we are all in the same boat" means equality for all, access for all...from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. I have only begun to explain the groundwork for a comparison of biology and economics that will need a lot of development, and many pages of explaining and analysis. Suffice it to say that capitalism, inequality, and subjectivity go hand-in-hand. To ensure liberty, that is equality, prevails then indeed all this needs to be considered. It's been laid out before, but as far as I know never in conjunction with ecological footprints and the rights of every human to equally share in the resources used in 'the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.' Of course "happiness," as I said earlier, is a subjective (or pluralistic) ideal as well...but if all hominids chose to reach the highest level of consumption possible it should be available, no? In turn, then that consumption would have to be balanced and quantified to ensure it is equal. All our footprints quantified into the same size. Anything else would be injustice, oppression, and subjugation...in others words "liberty and justice" for "some," not "all." And the words "that's life" won't wash away the fact that it is a life manufactured and created by humans. A life and world that could be much better than it is no thanks to each and every on of us. "Don't tread on me!"

PATRIOT GAMES: You can hear an entire audio of a debate on: "Teaching Patriotism in Time of War, Educators Approach Loyalty to Country in Different Ways."

The people debating are Howard Zinn and Peter Gibbon:

read/hear the debate @www.justicetalking.org/viewprogram.asp?progID=393

_________________________________________________________________________________

Audio Lecture and Q and A from former Marine and UN Inspector Scott Ritter @ Chapman University speaking about Patriotism and the illegality of the US war on Iraq