Curious Anniversary

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
This week marks the 74th anniversary of the conclusion of hearings regarding the attempted military takeover of the United States by a fascist cabal of Wall Street Businessmen.

What?  You never heard of that in school?  Smedley Butler?

Well, Congress never actually did anything about the coup, and the report issued by the committee was heavily redacted so that barely a shell of the report was provided.

What little was produced was downplayed by the media (from the wiki):

Reaction to Butler's testimony by the media and business elite was dismissive or hostile. The majority of media outlets, including The New York Times,Philadelphia Post,[33] and Time Magazine ridiculed or downplayed his claims, saying they lacked evidence. After the committee concluded, The New York Times and Time Magazine downplayed the conclusions of the committee.[34]



A man named Spivak wrote an article detailing the actual stenographer's notes.

This article was downplayed as a screed and a personal vendetta, but if you look at WHAT the screed was about, it's just *fascinating*.

How often do you come across a reliable source that claims there exists a 'class' of people outside of definition (not taught in school) that treats the rest of the population as a resource to be manipulated and plied against itself for profit.  When you find that the members of this 'class' include both the 'Jewish Bankers' and the 'Nazi Fascists' and they are *JOINTLY* funding associations that antagonize one another (as if they were writing a play), it's past fascinating.

It's fascistnating. 

Now the main 'association' deserves a visit, since it's a curious tie-in with modern days:

The American Liberty League was a U.S. organization formed in 1934 by conservative Democrats such as Al Smith (the 1928 Democratic presidential nominee), Jouett Shouse (former high party official and U.S. Representative), John W. Davis (the 1924 Democratic presidential nominee), and John Jacob Raskob (former Democratic National Chairman and the foremost opponent of prohibition), Dean Acheson (future Secretary of State under Harry Truman), along with many industrialists, notably Prescott Bush and members of the Du Pont family.

The du Ponts were going to give free credit to the Remingtons so that their little army could get guns.  I dunno why the Remingtons needed credit.  They had plenty to splurge on the big house in Santa Clara.

So, I came across the most curious correlation for a historical association between fascists and Jewish bankers in looking into Prescott Bush's history (his dad, Samuel Bush):

In the spring of 1918, banker Bernard Baruch was asked to reorganize the War Industries Board as the U.S. prepared to enter World War I, and placed several prominent businessmen to key posts. Bush became chief of the Ordnance, Small Arms, and Ammunition Section, with national responsibility for government assistance to and relations with munitions companies.

Bush served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (as well as of the Huntington National Bank of Columbus).[2]. In 1931, he was appointed toHerbert Hoover's President's Committee for Unemployment Relief, chaired by Walter S. Gifford, then-President of AT&T.[4] He was once recommended to serve on the board of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, but Hoover did not feel he was sufficiently nationally known.[2]


It is fascinating.  But, back on point:

So, the general who testified (and was ignored), Butler, ultimately wrote a book called "War Is a Racket".   In it, he describes (in detail) how wars are promulgated for profit.  

The link above is for the wiki.  You can buy the book at Amazon, or you can just read it online.  Here's the meat of it:

CHAPTER FOUR: How To Smash This Racket! 

Well, it's a racket, all right. A few profit - and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation - it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories 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.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages - all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers - yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders - everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds. Why shouldn't they? They aren't running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren't sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren't hungry. The soldiers are! Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket - that and nothing else.

Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won't permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people - those who do the suffering and still pay the price - make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.

Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. 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.

It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide - and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.

A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don't shout that "We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation." Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh. The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast. The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket: 1.) We must take the profit out of war; 2.) We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war; 3.) We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes. 



It's a neat book, but his *SOLUTION* is the part that's really remarkable.  I like it:

There's a 'Society' too.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://blog.writch.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/227

Leave a comment

hometop

GreenStream

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by writch published on January 6, 2009 5:20 PM.

The Queer Thirties? was the previous entry in this blog.

Nearly Plagiarized is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Mentionables ...

It's been days since Israel broke the truce and started murdering Palestinians again.

Pres. Barack Obama
(202) 456-1111

Sen. Dianne Feinstein
(415) 393-0707

Sen. Barbara Boxer
(415) 403-0100

Mike Thompson
962-0933

S. Sen. Patricia Wiggins
(916) 651-4002

Assm. Wesley Chesbro
463-5770

Categories

Visitor Map

Creative Commons License
This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by Movable Type 4.21-en