War is a Racket...

[terra]

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the 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 very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

You've probably read the book. If you havent, it's a very short and easy read. An important work at its time and even more relevant right now. No, it's not another hippy diatribe... It's written by one of the highest ranking Marines - in 1935.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

If you haven't read the book, it only takes a few minutes. Get the full text here:
https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket
or here:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Wiki on the Author, Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, USMC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

[Testiclaw]

Butler was an amazing man.

[bennyonesix]

Soldier? WTF?

[Turdacious]

Profiteering takes place in every conflict, but taking that book seriously today requires a stunning ignorance of 20th century history.

[bennyonesix]

Last I checked blowing shit up and firing weapons at people and risking one's own life ARE THE MOST FUN THINGS IN THE WORLD.

That might have something to do with war.

Read the Iliad not that crap.

[Testiclaw]

Profiteering takes place in every conflict, but taking that book seriously today requires a stunning ignorance of 20th century history.

Fuck, you're so fucking dumb. Seriously, end your bloodline.

There's jack shit that you post here that's reasonable. You're talking points are ridiculous.

At least PL54 parrots Louie, which can be semi-useful, albeit fucking annoying; You're just a typical inbred conservative.

Please, eat a bullet.

[Turdacious]

Deep breaths. Deep breaths.

[Sangoma]

It's a good book. And the history of the 20th century is no different from any other century. Same shit: rich folks con poor ones into the games of patriotism and use kids' lives to achieve their goals, all of which eventually focus on money and power. If anything, the history of the 20th century is more cynical and way more destructive compared to the earlier times.

[Turdacious]

It's a good book. And the history of the 20th century is no different from any other century. Same shit: rich folks con poor ones into the games of patriotism and use kids' lives to achieve their goals, all of which eventually focus on money and power. If anything, the history of the 20th century is more cynical and way more destructive compared to the earlier times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
A big factor.

[Testiclaw]

Deep breaths. Deep breaths.

Kill yourself.

[Sangoma]

Since the beginning of times there has always been a big factor. In my time on my side of the globe it was Imperialism.

[Turdacious]

Since the beginning of times there has always been a big factor. In my time on my side of the globe it was Imperialism.

Communism has always been a factor?

[Turdacious]

Look at me.

[nafod]

This article is as enlightened as it gets...

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/wars- ... otivators/

EMOTIONAL SELF-INTEREST

Instead of clinging to the failed model of rational self-interest as an analytical tool, substitute “emotional self-interest.” It’s akin to switching on a light. If, instead of fabricating logical sequences of calculation where none exist, we accept that indi¬viduals, peoples and states act in ways that are emotionally sat¬isfying, no end of knotty analytical problems dissolve. Whether we look at why we vote for the candidates we do, why a terror¬ist straps on a suicide belt, why Hutus massacred 1 million Tutsis with cold steel or why states blunder into war, assessing the degree of emotional satisfaction gained from the act is as enlightening as seeking logic in such deeds is frustrating.

[DrDonkeyLove]

This article is as enlightened as it gets...

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/wars- ... otivators/

EMOTIONAL SELF-INTEREST

Instead of clinging to the failed model of rational self-interest as an analytical tool, substitute “emotional self-interest.” It’s akin to switching on a light. If, instead of fabricating logical sequences of calculation where none exist, we accept that indi¬viduals, peoples and states act in ways that are emotionally sat¬isfying, no end of knotty analytical problems dissolve. Whether we look at why we vote for the candidates we do, why a terror¬ist straps on a suicide belt, why Hutus massacred 1 million Tutsis with cold steel or why states blunder into war, assessing the degree of emotional satisfaction gained from the act is as enlightening as seeking logic in such deeds is frustrating.

That was a magnificent article that resonates across far more than war & politics. It provides a logical framework for individual and group stupidity.
Very Peter Ralston-ish in a way too.

[bennyonesix]

Ye sacred nine! celestial Muses! tell,
Who faced him first, and by his prowess fell?
The great Iphidamas, the bold and young,
From sage Antenor and Theano sprung;
Whom from his youth his grandsire Cisseus bred,
And nursed in Thrace where snowy flocks are fed.
Scarce did the down his rosy cheeks invest,
And early honour warm his generous breast,
When the kind sire consign'd his daughter's charms
(Theano's sister) to his youthful arms.
But call'd by glory to the wars of Troy,
He leaves untasted the first fruits of joy;
From his loved bride departs with melting eyes,
And swift to aid his dearer country flies.
With twelve black ships he reach'd Percope's strand,
Thence took the long laborious march by land.
Now fierce for fame, before the ranks he springs,
Towering in arms, and braves the king of kings.
Atrides first discharged the missive spear;
The Trojan stoop'd, the javelin pass'd in air.
Then near the corslet, at the monarch's heart,
With all his strength, the youth directs his dart:
But the broad belt, with plates of silver bound,
The point rebated, and repell'd the wound.
Encumber'd with the dart, Atrides stands,
Till, grasp'd with force, he wrench'd it from his hands;
At once his weighty sword discharged a wound
Full on his neck, that fell'd him to the ground.
Stretch'd in the dust the unhappy warrior lies,
And sleep eternal seals his swimming eyes.
Oh worthy better fate! oh early slain!
Thy country's friend; and virtuous, though in vain!
No more the youth shall join his consort's side,
At once a virgin, and at once a bride!

Homer- Iliad- Book XI

[nafod]

Ye sacred nine! celestial Muses! tell,
Who faced him first, and by his prowess fell?
The great Iphidamas, the bold and young,
From sage Antenor and Theano sprung;
Whom from his youth his grandsire Cisseus bred,
And nursed in Thrace where snowy flocks are fed.
Scarce did the down his rosy cheeks invest,
And early honour warm his generous breast,
When the kind sire consign'd his daughter's charms
(Theano's sister) to his youthful arms.
But call'd by glory to the wars of Troy,
He leaves untasted the first fruits of joy;
From his loved bride departs with melting eyes,
And swift to aid his dearer country flies.
With twelve black ships he reach'd Percope's strand,
Thence took the long laborious march by land.
Now fierce for fame, before the ranks he springs,
Towering in arms, and braves the king of kings.
Atrides first discharged the missive spear;
The Trojan stoop'd, the javelin pass'd in air.
Then near the corslet, at the monarch's heart,
With all his strength, the youth directs his dart:
But the broad belt, with plates of silver bound,
The point rebated, and repell'd the wound.
Encumber'd with the dart, Atrides stands,
Till, grasp'd with force, he wrench'd it from his hands;
At once his weighty sword discharged a wound
Full on his neck, that fell'd him to the ground.
Stretch'd in the dust the unhappy warrior lies,
And sleep eternal seals his swimming eyes.
Oh worthy better fate! oh early slain!
Thy country's friend; and virtuous, though in vain!
No more the youth shall join his consort's side,
At once a virgin, and at once a bride!

Homer- Iliad- Book XI

Definitely should have stopped at that whore house on the way.

[bennyonesix]

This article is as enlightened as it gets...

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/wars- ... otivators/

EMOTIONAL SELF-INTEREST

Instead of clinging to the failed model of rational self-interest as an analytical tool, substitute “emotional self-interest.” It’s akin to switching on a light. If, instead of fabricating logical sequences of calculation where none exist, we accept that indi¬viduals, peoples and states act in ways that are emotionally sat¬isfying, no end of knotty analytical problems dissolve. Whether we look at why we vote for the candidates we do, why a terror¬ist straps on a suicide belt, why Hutus massacred 1 million Tutsis with cold steel or why states blunder into war, assessing the degree of emotional satisfaction gained from the act is as enlightening as seeking logic in such deeds is frustrating.

That was a magnificent article that resonates across far more than war & politics. It provides a logical framework for individual and group stupidity.
Very Peter Ralston-ish in a way too.

Hey thanks for that Nafod. Gave me the mental chills and anxiety I get when I read things that get close to the bone. My gut tells me this is a very narrow and rocky path to walk and perilously close to utter disaster... How far is this from the tribalism and identity politics of the Cultural Left? Not very... Are we as white men (you know what I mean) really ready to abandon "logic"? If we do is there anything else but to throw ourselves right into the bloody madness? Do we become Vikings? Because I think Peters really spent the whole article not saying a Nietzschean "logic is dead"... And what he means by "logic" is trans-tribal aspiration.

[bennyonesix]

Ye sacred nine! celestial Muses! tell,
Who faced him first, and by his prowess fell?
The great Iphidamas, the bold and young,
From sage Antenor and Theano sprung;
Whom from his youth his grandsire Cisseus bred,
And nursed in Thrace where snowy flocks are fed.
Scarce did the down his rosy cheeks invest,
And early honour warm his generous breast,
When the kind sire consign'd his daughter's charms
(Theano's sister) to his youthful arms.
But call'd by glory to the wars of Troy,
He leaves untasted the first fruits of joy;
From his loved bride departs with melting eyes,
And swift to aid his dearer country flies.
With twelve black ships he reach'd Percope's strand,
Thence took the long laborious march by land.
Now fierce for fame, before the ranks he springs,
Towering in arms, and braves the king of kings.
Atrides first discharged the missive spear;
The Trojan stoop'd, the javelin pass'd in air.
Then near the corslet, at the monarch's heart,
With all his strength, the youth directs his dart:
But the broad belt, with plates of silver bound,
The point rebated, and repell'd the wound.
Encumber'd with the dart, Atrides stands,
Till, grasp'd with force, he wrench'd it from his hands;
At once his weighty sword discharged a wound
Full on his neck, that fell'd him to the ground.
Stretch'd in the dust the unhappy warrior lies,
And sleep eternal seals his swimming eyes.
Oh worthy better fate! oh early slain!
Thy country's friend; and virtuous, though in vain!
No more the youth shall join his consort's side,
At once a virgin, and at once a bride!

Homer- Iliad- Book XI

Definitely should have stopped at that whore house on the way.

10/10 motherfucker

[TerryB]

War...profits...correlation...causation....yada yada yada

[Sangoma]

Well, Nafod is on the right track. I would add that wars are not started by leaders like Hitler or Mussolini; instead, these guys appear when the situation is ripe to start a war. Leo Tolstoy elaborated on this theme in his War And Peace. In his view Napoleon could not start the war against Russia if several million of his population did not want it. One difference I can see is that in those times the readiness to fight was conditioned by economic and to an extent national factors, while now large part belongs to marketing by politicians. Pretty much like the slogan of Hyundai: "Prepare to want one".

I recently browsed through this book, War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning by a journalist who spent a lot of time in war zones. An interesting read. Even though war brings immense suffering, later people remember these times with sentimental longing.

Fighting is certainly embedded in our genetic makeup, and because of the incredibly inventive properties of the human mind we can take it to the heights no other animal could get to. In the Book of Five Rings a page is devoted to the fact that countries, cultures and civilisations stagnate during peace times and get stronger and develop during wars. Put on top of that the capability to morph public opinion by the economic elite, and it becomes clear that we are pretty fucked.

[terra]

Smet, Do you think the sentimental longing is actually because 'war' brought purpose to people's otherwise dull life? Not that war is a person's 'purpose' but that war requires us to band together (connection/community) and actually gave them something to focus on (purpose) - other than those bullshit constructs that are typically created to make up for a lack of connection and purpose (gossip, superstition, materialism, etc).

In fact might one see this increasingly the case in a world where sympathetic ANS overload, amplifies physiological need to 'mobilise'. Even if it is simply due to the gentic incongruences existing in the living environment they have built or themselves. A possible paralleled etiology with the manner in which 'outrage addiction' fans the flames of vices such as modern feminism and religion - at the personal level of warped self actualisation.

[Turdacious]

Smet and terra-- just curious, but have you arrived at your conclusions by reading opinions from both sides of the debate, or just those that validate your own preconceived notions?

[Blaidd Drwg]

Smet and terra-- just curious, but have you arrived at your conclusions by reading opinions from both sides of the debate, or just those that validate your own preconceived notions?

The fuck is the debate anyway?

[Sangoma]

Smet, Do you think the sentimental longing is actually because 'war' brought purpose to people's otherwise dull life? Not that war is a person's 'purpose' but that war requires us to band together (connection/community) and actually gave them something to focus on (purpose) - other than those bullshit constructs that are typically created to make up for a lack of connection and purpose (gossip, superstition, materialism, etc).

In fact might one see this increasingly the case in a world where sympathetic ANS overload, amplifies physiological need to 'mobilise'. Even if it is simply due to the gentic incongruences existing in the living environment they have built or themselves. A possible paralleled etiology with the manner in which 'outrage addiction' fans the flames of vices such as modern feminism and religion - at the personal level of warped self actualisation.

I think war corrupts us in the way that it simplifies things: the world gets divided into good guys and bad guys. As opposed to lots of shades of grey in the time of peace. Yes, this does bind people together and gives them purpose. Life vs death business, there is hardly anything more pure than that. It is easy to theorise about the reasons, but I think that words are very limiting for describing what motivates a person when his life is constantly threatened. In terms of explaining it from physiological point of view - I think it is a dead end; human psyche is a very complicated machine that is governed by a complicated mechanisms and cannot be explained from one position. I don't think there is anything new in human life style in principle. Same problems, and we have been easily mobilised for killing others since the beginning of times.

There is another good book about war, The Forgotten Soldier It is a memoir of a guy - half German, half French, who joined SS troops in 1942 and was sent to fight the Russians. Very balanced - neither pacifist or war mongering - and generally mind blowing. I think serving guys would enjoy it a lot.