First Post Last Post
War Is A Racket by Major General Smedley Butler
Author Message
This is a short essay written by an American General after WW1. He warns how wars are used to make money for the rich, and how all signs point to a future war that will be even bigger than WW1, which did happen in the form of WW2. And now there is talk about WW2. How many billions can be made from it?

Quote:In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

[...]

There wouldn't be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant -- all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war -- voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms -- to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.

He doesn't argue that we should avoid wars because of peace and love, but because the elite are too tempted to sacrifice men on the battlefields in order to make money.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Quote
If we look at war from its proper definition---war is the continuation of state policy---then it makes sense that a select few would benefit disproportionately at the expense of the vast majority.

Nice find.
Quote
Putting aside the fact that men will die in the tens of if not hundreds of thousands. An possible positive side effect to war would be that western women may actually find incentive to take care of themselves again. When males are literally scarce, the women would have no choice but to look as best they can knowing that their looks would be the biggest deciding factor in acquiring a mate.

But from when have wars not been about profiting the rich or those in power? Back when looting and pillaging was acceptable the soldiers could possibly come home with small fortunes. But generally, the men died so that the King can acquire more resources for himself or even just to settle a petty score.
Quote
War in the financial-democratic era seems to bring a greater share of the death toll to civilians.

It is based on the model of supporting an arms market in weapons which have a shelf-life that need to be used before the expiry date before new orders for more weapons are placed. The resultant destruction is great for contractors who rebuild the smashed up nations.

Then there is the king of kings of all wars: the usurer.
Quote
In passing, Smedley Butler also features in some conspiracy theories. Called the "Fighting Quaker", he testified to Congress that he'd been approached by a middleman representing some of the biggest financial interests of the early thirties -- we're talking Rockefeller, duPont and similar -- to help deliver a White House putsch and remove FDR from office on the basis that "the political situation has got to be changed up a bit." That is, they were looking to put in a fascist puppet, and Butler, it was thought, could deliver a vast number of men due to his inspirational qualities and his solid character.

It failed because Butler tried to expose the attempted coup to Congress. However, any report on the subject was buried by the newspaper moguls of the day.
Quote
(11-27-2015 01:08 AM)cascadecombo Wrote:  But from when have wars not been about profiting the rich or those in power? Back when looting and pillaging was acceptable the soldiers could possibly come home with small fortunes. But generally, the men died so that the King can acquire more resources for himself or even just to settle a petty score.

With the exception of the Americans and possibly the Japanese, WWI was a clusterfuck disaster for every other nation that was involved in it. It was terrible in every way imaginable for every class of people. In fact, I think Mr. Butler's argument runs into some obstacles when you analyze the Great War. The capitalists, especially the ones in London, were staunchly against it. The victory was truly Pyrrhic for the British as their empire began to crumble and the French economy and infrastructure was in total ruins. Meanwhile, the Russian elites were all murdered while the entire country was turned upside down with revolution. The German government lost its power and eventually ceded their country's future to radicals. We can analyze the human toll, too. In WWI, it was the aristocrats, the wealthy, and the rest of the cream of society that were the Captains and Lieutenants who were the first to leap out over the parapets into the lethal hail of machine gun fire and artillery. Over 30% of the 1913 Oxbridge graduating class died in the war. The intellectual flower of the West was lost. Both the British King and the German Chancellor lost sons.

Now? The elite love justifying the Military Industrial Complex with these little skirmishes where they blow up a bunch of illiterate losers riding around in Toyotas and old Russian tanks in the desert, but WWIII? You guys are having a laugh. The industrialized world has replaced the stinking corpses of empires with multilateral trade agreements. A major war between two powers is neigh unthinkable because the ruling classes stand to lose so much from it.
Quote
^^^^

Don't count on globalisation saving the world, Brightside. Quite the opposite, ahead of WW1 and significant 19th century conflicts that preceded it there were strong interconnected worldwide markets, and not even on the same scale we have today. The Great Depression, which came in ahead of WW2, was a worldwide phenomenon because of interconnected markets. The world's been a globalized economy since mid-1850 or earlier. None of that stopped the slaughter.

There is always money to be made on a war. Niall Ferguson tells us in The Ascent of Money, the Rothschilds made their fortune on bond speculation -- literally, adjusted for inflation, the biggest bond profit in history -- following on the outcome of Waterloo, arguably the equivalent of a world war for the time given the combatants in it.
Quote
(11-27-2015 02:05 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Don't count on globalisation saving the world, Brightside. Quite the opposite, ahead of WW1 and significant 19th century conflicts that preceded it there were strong interconnected worldwide markets, and not even on the same scale we have today. The Great Depression, which came in ahead of WW2, was a worldwide phenomenon because of interconnected markets. The world's been a globalized economy since mid-1850 or earlier. None of that stopped the slaughter.

Besides your possible belief in an upcoming apocalyptic world war, you've actually echoed my post. My point was that even with these interconnected markets and despite the pleas of the financial elite, conflicts like WWI still happened. You've actually poo-poo'd Mr. Butler's main point. Also, from the research I've done and read it seems Gerald MacGuire was basically an oddball who was more or less scamming Butler with the Business Plot stuff, because absolutely none of the details make any sense under basic scrutiny.

The Great Depression was caused by the American stock market crash, which in turn was caused in part by American protectionism (Smoot-Hawley Tariff). WWII was caused by extreme protectionism.

So I don't think globalization will save the world from a major war, but it won't be the financial elite who start it.
Quote
(11-27-2015 12:58 AM)Roosh Wrote:  He doesn't argue that we should avoid wars because of peace and love, but because the elite are too tempted to sacrifice men on the battlefields in order to make money.

I see this as the dividing line between National Security and National 'Interest'.
Quote
When the Lords play their game of thrones it is the commoners who suffer.
Quote
(11-27-2015 01:21 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  In passing, Smedley Butler also features in some conspiracy theories. Called the "Fighting Quaker", he testified to Congress that he'd been approached by a middleman representing some of the biggest financial interests of the early thirties -- we're talking Rockefeller, duPont and similar -- to help deliver a White House putsch and remove FDR from office on the basis that "the political situation has got to be changed up a bit." That is, they were looking to put in a fascist puppet, and Butler, it was thought, could deliver a vast number of men due to his inspirational qualities and his solid character.

It failed because Butler tried to expose the attempted coup to Congress. However, any report on the subject was buried by the newspaper moguls of the day.

Familiar with the incident. It featured on a "conspiracies which turned out to be true" episode of Cracked's podcast. Also one of the reasons I quit listening. As the mayor of New York said at the time, this amounted to little more than a champagne conspiracy of a few well-connected men tossing out some crazy ideas.
Quote
Strangely enough I read this years ago before I deployed to Afghanistan. I've been pretty anti war ever since.
Quote
Chaos is a ladder.
Quote
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service as a member of our country's most agile military force -- the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. During that period I spent more 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 that I was just a part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it.

Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups.

This is typical with everyone in the military service. Thus 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. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honours, medals and promotion. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. I operated on three continents".

-- General Smedley Butler, former US Marine Corps Commandant,1935

(I wish he would have used the proper term "corporatism" instead of "capitalism". Well so much for "fighting for your country")
Quote
(11-27-2015 10:46 AM)Pride male Wrote:  Chaos is a ladder.

Don't worry, according to the mad Green lobby, winter summer is coming.
Quote
Historically, historic changes have come out of war.
Quote
I suspected this as well once I was in service always questioning why the fuck are we even here. But to be honest I don't really care. It's still going to continue regardless of my thoughts or actions. I knew people who tried protesting the military industrial complex but failed miserably.

Since then I got out of the army and I just started contracting getting my piece of the pie. Fuck it if they are doing it might as well profit some how off the war. Theres already talks in the contract sector that there will be contracts in Syria. I realize I'm pawn or slightly better chess piece in their big game but at the end of the day I won't be making this type of money back home even if I was 5-10 years in decent paying sector.

Being 27 and having the choice to buy my house in cash right now is a good dam feeling.
Quote
(11-27-2015 01:21 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  In passing, Smedley Butler also features in some conspiracy theories. Called the "Fighting Quaker", he testified to Congress that he'd been approached by a middleman representing some of the biggest financial interests of the early thirties -- we're talking Rockefeller, duPont and similar -- to help deliver a White House putsch and remove FDR from office on the basis that "the political situation has got to be changed up a bit." That is, they were looking to put in a fascist puppet, and Butler, it was thought, could deliver a vast number of men due to his inspirational qualities and his solid character.

It failed because Butler tried to expose the attempted coup to Congress. However, any report on the subject was buried by the newspaper moguls of the day.

Is there a record of that Congressional testimony by Butler?
Quote
The elites are always looking to line their pockets. The Iraq war was planned in advance by Cheney and most of the cabinet/PNAC members. Defense spending makes a lot of people a lot of money. I wouldn't put WWIII past them, they have their shelters and know it isn't them who would be dying.

Quote: The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:
* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions."

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."

From - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info...le1665.htm
Quote
(12-01-2015 10:45 PM)Gorgiass Wrote:  I wouldn't put WWIII past them, they have their shelters and know it isn't them who would be dying.

What good is money when most of the world is dead, there is no new media, and the golf-courses are closed because of nuclear winter.

Get a grip, gents.
Quote
(12-01-2015 12:57 PM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  
(11-27-2015 01:21 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  In passing, Smedley Butler also features in some conspiracy theories. Called the "Fighting Quaker", he testified to Congress that he'd been approached by a middleman representing some of the biggest financial interests of the early thirties -- we're talking Rockefeller, duPont and similar -- to help deliver a White House putsch and remove FDR from office on the basis that "the political situation has got to be changed up a bit." That is, they were looking to put in a fascist puppet, and Butler, it was thought, could deliver a vast number of men due to his inspirational qualities and his solid character.

It failed because Butler tried to expose the attempted coup to Congress. However, any report on the subject was buried by the newspaper moguls of the day.

Is there a record of that Congressional testimony by Butler?

It was the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional Committee. The text can be found here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/McCormack..._Committee

On a brief browse, I didn't realise: Butler was not only an honest man, he appears to have been one of the bravest. He was a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honour. Twice. And his reputation seemed to precede him:

Quote:General BUTLER. May I preface my remarks by saying, sir, that I have one interest in all of this, and that is to try to do my best to see that a democracy is maintained in this country.

The CHAIRMAN. Nobody who has either read about or known about General Butler would have anything but that understanding.
Quote
War has always been about money.

Always has, always will.
Quote
Dont mean to derail the thread, but the conflict in Israel is about what exactly? Are they just fighting over sand and bragging rights? Is it about oil? Military strategy in the Arab world? Religion? If I was Jewish the last place I would want to be is on a desert surrounded by my enemies.
Quote
Post WW2, Jews went to Palestine and displaced the Arabs living there. 67 war had all the Arabs attack, and Israel kicked their asses and took even more territory. Jews live in a siege state, Arabs in an occupied state. Both have growing populations and limited resources.

In the background of all of this was Europe carving up Africa, middle east, Asia because colonialism.

Oil has been important for at least a century, so having a friendly nation or two in the region ( Saudi Arabia) is vital.

Oil is the only reason we care about Venezuela.

Even if we have oil of our own, the powers that be play the long game. Until nuclear fission gets popular or fusion becomes feasible Israel it's important.

WIA
Quote
Expanding on WIA's great summary a bit: the religious reason, for the Jews, comes down to something of a split in Jewish thinking following the Holocaust. For many Jews living in Israel or heavily supporting Israel, it is not just about culture, it's about the Messiah.

As a starting point, consider Christianity. Judaism has a long tradition of teachings and prophets that one day a Messiah would come who would raise the Jewish people -- who think of themselves as the Chosen people of God, the Israelites - so they'd have a kingdom of their own which God would support, a holy kingdom which they call Zion.

Christianity, which is an outgrowth of Judaism, believes that Messiah has already come: Jesus Christ, who is seen as not a secular ruler or king as such, but rather a spiritual Messiah, a saviour of mankind from original sin. Judaism, in summary, does not accept Jesus as the Messiah (basically because there are several prophecies he is said not to have upheld, but more basically because he didn't unload a can of angel-backed military whoopass on the occupying Romans at the time of his arrival) and Judaism says it is still awaiting the coming of its Messiah.

Here's where the religious element plays into it: there is a disagreement in Judaic religious circles about whether the Messiah, when he comes, will establish Zion on Earth ... or whether it's the responsibility of the Jews at large to create Zion, the holy city, on Earth so it's waiting for the Messiah when he shows up. Added to that there's the issue of where and what Zion is or should be: is Zion a literal place (compare the "kingdom of God" that Christianity often refers to as a spiritual realm rather than physical) and if Zion is a literal place, should it not be in Jerusalem, the city promised to Judaism as its centre according to its historical traditions?

Added to that was, like it or not, the Holocaust in WW2. Six million Jews dead was a profound blow to Judaism at large; it took on almost a religious significance for some elements, a sign that something fundamental had to change in Judaism at large. Indeed the name Holocaust is one that comes from Judaism itself - it's the word for sacrifice, a burning of a sacrificial animal on an altar, sometimes called the Shoah, the destruction in Hebrew.

One vector of that belief (which also held a practical dimension) was that Jews would never be safe in the world unless they had a nation of their own, or lived in a country that was historically theirs. The last Jewish nation in the world had really been the Khazar nation in the Middle Ages; as one book put it, there hadn't been a Jew for roughly two thousand years who could look for a soldier and expect to find one that shared his allegiance or his religion. Hence the large-scale immigration of the Jewish Diaspora around the world to Palestine, to lands that historically had been Jewish in the past - as well as the standing invitation for people of Jewish descent to "return", i.e. immigrate, to Israel.

And thus, Zionism: the idea that Israel is not just a nation, a refuge for Jews, but that it's a God-ordained holy nation for Jews to be built so the Messiah can finally turn up.

The establishment of the State of Israel in 1952 was as much an attempt at a stop-gap solution as any sort of positive manipulation of boundaries in that area (although the colonial powers were pretty shit at that, too).

If practically you wouldn't want to be surrounded by enemies as a Jew: well, Israel more or less throughout its history was surrounded by enemies according to the Old Testament. Wander through the OT and it's pretty hard to find a period when Israel's kings weren't fighting someone or other; hell, even on arrival back from Egypt under Moses, Israel basically pushed out (on God's command) all the inhabitants of Israel who were already there.

And Israel has always enjoyed (a) serious support from the US and (b) incompetence among its Arabic conventional enemies. I mean, the war in 1967 was a wash. It's also called the "Six Day War" because it only took Israel six days to win it. Egypt, Jordan, and Syria all declared war and advanced on Israel, and Israel pushed back all of them. They wiped out Egypt's entire air force in pre-emptive strikes and pushed the Egyptians right back across the Sinai, all the way over the Suez Canal. Although note also that wasn't the start of the conflict: the Arabs had been trying to destroy the Israeli presence in Palestine since 1948.
Quote



Return to Top RooshV.com